PDA

View Full Version : Net neutrality & freedom of speech



Pugwash
07-27-2010, 10:03 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ODV5U87yps&feature=player_embedded

I'm sure it will come as no surprise that I agree with Al.

However, I would be interested in hearing what the right think about this. I don't believe it should be a partisan issue. Unfortunately I'm not sure that the fact that the campaign for the continued free flow of information, unhindered by corporate interests, is being championed by Al Franken doesn't come into play.

Thoughts?

elf
07-27-2010, 11:32 AM
Franken is really smart - as in that combination of savvy and quick on ones feet and sheer brights.

Y Bar Ranch
07-27-2010, 11:45 AM
I'm all for it. Censorship, soft or hard, = bad.

Captain Intrepid
07-27-2010, 11:51 AM
I can't help but be super-impressed with this guy. Yeah, he may have been a comedian in an early career, but since he was elected as Sentator, he's struck me as being extraordinarily hard-working, super-well informed on the issues, and generally of the right demeanor. I was initially impressed with the way he spoke to people at a rally who disagreed with his stand on some issue (I think it was the stimulus act)... the people shouting at him were boneheads, but he wasn't baited, and spoke calmly and rationally to them.

It's my understanding that to be a good political satirist you must have a very deep understanding of both sides of the issue. Probably why right wing comedians generally aren't very successful at satire, they usually lack the introspection required. That plus the intestinal fortitude required not to be hazed by morons in the audience and the need to be able to think on your feet and eloquently express those thoughts makes a political satirist pretty much made for the job.

Captain Blight
07-27-2010, 01:02 PM
I am very pleased with the job he's doing representing Minnesota. For once I feel like I didn't simply pick the lesser of two weevils.

ILikeRust
07-27-2010, 02:33 PM
You mean this brilliant constitutional law scholar?

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/franken_diaper.jpg

Pugwash
07-27-2010, 02:37 PM
You mean this brilliant constitutional law scholar?

As I thought.

It's quite sad really.

SMARTINSEN
07-27-2010, 02:44 PM
I do believe that the bunny photo was photoshopped.

But carry on.

RonW
07-27-2010, 03:25 PM
Very enlightening video...and at 1;30 in the video we learn from franky---

(The internet is just more then the foundation of the community we progressivers have built...) I wonder if he knew that al gore created the internet?

Al franken is a idiot and always will be..........

Of course his real agenda isn't protecting free speech, but closing out corporations from having free speech as well...

Pugwash
07-27-2010, 06:34 PM
Very enlightening video...and at 1;30 in the video we learn from franky---

(The internet is just more then the foundation of the community we progressivers have built...) I wonder if he knew that al gore created the internet?

Al franken is a idiot and always will be..........

Of course his real agenda isn't protecting free speech, but closing out corporations from having free speech as well...

You haven't let me down. A complete inability to have a rational conversation about freedom of speech (or anything else) without resorting to lies and fear mongering.

"I wonder if he knew al gore created the internet" (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp)

Nuff said about that.


"The internet is just more then the foundation of the community we progressivers have built..."

The "progressives" are much more internet savvy than reps and do have substantially more active online communities.

Regardless of what you think of him, I think Howard Dean is credited with being the first polly to gather campaign funds through multiple small donations through internet activity rather than traditional means and you certainly can't dismiss the effectiveness of Obamas e-campaign.

I don't think it's unreasonable to make that statement.


"Of course his real agenda isn't protecting free speech, but closing out corporations from having free speech as well.."

Which is just complete and total gasbaggery. It's not called Net neutrality just for fun.


neutrality


The state or quality of being neutral; the condition of being unengaged in contests between others; state of taking no part on either side; indifference.
(obsolete (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#obsolete)) Indifference in quality; a state neither very good nor bad. -- John Donne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Donne)
(chemistry (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chemistry)): The quality or state of being neutral.
(international law) The condition of a nation or government which refrains from taking part, directly or indirectly, in a war between other powers.
Those who are neutral; a combination of neutral powers or states.



With regulation in place to ensure neutrality in the transmission of content then no-one is at an advantage or disadvantage.

Your ability to view WalMart.com & WalMartsucks.com would be equal and not run through a corporate filter.

I have a feeling that you don't understand the discussion that is taking place.

Pugwash
07-27-2010, 06:55 PM
I don't get the impression that you have the slightest idea what 'net neutrality' is all about.


Doesn't surprise me.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eyTs-Idl_Q

Captain Blight
07-27-2010, 06:55 PM
You mean this brilliant constitutional law scholar?

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/franken_diaper.jpg
Yep, that's him, the guy I feel is doing such a good job representing his constituency. Are you suggesting he doesn't have a first-rate legal and political intellect just because he worked in the humor and parody end of the entertainment industry for a while? That's like saying I can't do anything on tugboats because I'm good with words.

htom
07-27-2010, 07:05 PM
The problem in the current proposal is the "regulations" (which have yet to be written, and can be modified by the Commissioner or his designee) but there's nothing to preclude either walmartsucks.com, or ilovewalmart.com, or both, from being throttled.) More likely to be throttled: burnakorantoday.com and brandydoesdavey.com.

delecta
07-27-2010, 07:13 PM
I didn't realize that the internet was broken? As usual, we really don't know what this will be and whom it will effect.

But you people carry on being sheeple, more government regulation has to be better.

htom
07-27-2010, 07:39 PM
I don't want companies controlling it.

I don't want the government controlling it, either.

Nor any religion.

Wide open. Bring on the wild west.

RonW
07-27-2010, 08:59 PM
I thought the internet is wide open as in like right now..

I can jump from wooden boats to porn, even without government regulations and oversight.Plus big budget to run such a program..

So why do we need big brother to come in and take control? For what to protect us.

Like I said franken's agenda is simple, the dems are pissing in their pants over the supreme court allowing corporations to voice their opinion on politics..

Why would that be? Might be the corporations have something to say about doing business in america, you know the ones that went overseas and took the jobs with them..Just like caterpillar over the health care fiasco regulation that we needed to pass to see what is in it..

I agree with tom and delecta, you don't need big brother, bring on the wild west...

RonW
07-27-2010, 09:24 PM
No norm it is not ideology that makes people into idiots, it is being naive that makes people act like idiots..

Do you really think big brother will come in and take care of you?

Why are you liberals so afraid of making you own choices without the guidance of big brother?

P.S. a lot of the banking and economic issues presently at hand are directly related to your big brother. He screwed up once again..

Pugwash
07-27-2010, 09:43 PM
Do you really think big brother will come in and take care of you?

It's not about big brother taking care of you. It's about the FCC having the means to ensure that ISPs do not filter content or stream selectively.


I agree with tom and delecta, you don't need big brother, bring on the wild west...

The wild west days of the internet are pretty much over, it's now time to choose a sheriff.

But first you have to decide what freedom of speech means and whether you want it approved by AT&T before you get to hear it or whether you want to make up your own mind from a range of sources.

RonW
07-27-2010, 09:53 PM
It's about the FCC having the means to ensure that ISPs

yep, that is my point exactly..


But first you have to decide what freedom of speech means

freedom means without control..


you want it approved by AT&T before you get to hear it

Nope...and neither do I want the government deciding on what I can hear..


The wild west days of the internet are pretty much over, it's now time to choose a sheriff.

Why, and who is going to choose the sheriff? Do you know who is afraid the most of the internet? Politicians, that's who..

nw_noob
07-27-2010, 10:13 PM
Guys, do you realize that your ISP's are corporations?

Do you realize that the company's that own the mega-server-farm-doohiky places that store all this web content are corporations?

Do you realize that your copy of I.E. that came on your P.C. is from a corporation?

If you want the freedom of wild-west style interwebz, it's in your best interest to make sure those corporations that can alter your web experience aren't able to. The ability to direct web traffic is a valuable thing, and if corporations are allowed to be less than neutral for a profit, you can bet your ass some of them will be going that route sooner than later.

RonW
07-27-2010, 10:22 PM
You're not making sense. OK, you don't want the government interfering in any way.... but what makes you think that AT&T or the others won't take your freedom away?

Fair enough norman...The government will increase it's power and abuse it's power and once again increase and abuse.
And there ain't a dammed thing you can do about it..

If at&t abuses me, infringes upon my rights, I can switch carriers, or sue them, possibly in a class action suit.

No such recourse for the government..

Do not sacrafice your liberty for promises of security..

nw_noob
07-27-2010, 10:52 PM
Ron, I'm a pretty conservative "don't trust the gubmint" kind of guy myself, so I see where you're coming from.

Sure you can switch from AT&T to Comcast, but what happens when Comcast starts doing the same stuff? Have you not noticed that anti-trust laws haven't ensured us a plethora of choices, but rather left us with duopoly's and triopoly's when it comes to dealing with large corporations? Have you not noticed that cell phone company's pretty much offer the same services for the same rates, and that most service areas only have a handful of available providers? Have you not noticed that your web service is a choice between 2 or 3 company's that charge about the same rates for the same services? Your boycott won't accomplish squat if all the major providers act the same and block the web sites where people try to drum up support for a boycott. Suing them won't do squat either if they are legally allowed to do that crap.

BTW, the freedom for security quote is a good one... too bad nobody remembered that when we passed the Patriot Act. If you think you're browsing in a gov't-free internet now you are sadly mistaken sir.

RonW
07-27-2010, 11:13 PM
BTW, the freedom for security quote is a good one... too bad nobody remembered that when we passed the Patriot Act. If you think you're browsing in a gov't-free internet now you are sadly mistaken sir.

I am not the least bit mistaken, I am fully aware of what big brother is doing, and it is a shame others aren't.

As for the patriot act. It is a unconstitutional act with a sunset stage that keeps being extended.
And is a perfect example of fear being used to grant authority that will result in security.

A sham and scam and any politician who voted for it should be horsewhipped as a treasonous act unto the american people in direct violation of the bill of rights.
Unconstitutional I say, No it is the governments opinion as well. Every time it comes close to being tried in a court of law, at the last minute the government bows out. Why you say, because they do not want a legal ruling on the act..

Do not sacrafice liberty for the hopes of security, if you do, then you deserve neither..

nw_noob
07-27-2010, 11:49 PM
Yet it seems you think that laissez faire interwebs (all profit motives welcome) are preferable to ensuring that content flows freely, if that means the gubmint has a hand in it? I'm a little more paranoid than the average bear, but you've got me beat if you seriously want the profit driven cowboys of Wall st. to regulate web info before you'd let the power driven Pennsylvania ave. marshal's office keep them from stealing the newspapers. See, there are a finite number of actual wires and satellites that connect us worldwide, and they are owned by very few co's, and as it stands, they can do whatever the hell they want with them. And unless I'm mistaken, there aren't many rich people waiting around to fund start-ups to string more wires globaly and give us new ISP options. As the lefty's told you, leaving it up to the profiteers is just a bad idea anyway you look at it... ensuring net-neutrality really should be a bi-partisan issue. If you've got reasons for this stance that go beyond ideals, I'd love to hear them.

htom
07-28-2010, 12:15 AM
I'd rather the internet not be throttled at all.

But I'd rather change from AT&T to Comcast, and then to Google, and then to LocalISP, ... than have a government telling all of those what they're not allowed to show me.

Digital fiber has enough bandwidth to allow millions of ISPs access to every home. This is as much about breaking the local cable and wire monopoly as it is about signal control.

It's much easier to change ISPs than it is to change governments.

nw_noob
07-28-2010, 12:43 AM
I'd rather the internet not be throttled at all.

Me too.



But I'd rather change from AT&T to Comcast, and then to Google, and then to LocalISP, ... than have a government telling all of those what they're not allowed to show me.

Digital fiber has enough bandwidth to allow millions of ISPs access to every home. This is as much about breaking the local cable and wire monopoly as it is about signal control.

It's much easier to change ISPs than it is to change governments.

The problem arises when the local ISP just leases some space and runs their own billing system to provide the illusion of a 3rd party choice, and there are few players who actually control all that bandwidth. It's not a question of what the gov't allows them to show you, but one of making our government tell them all in no uncertain terms that they shall have no say in what we get to see.

The real question seems to be: who has the potential to be more oppressive toward a free internet, a handful of global communication corp's, or the U.S. government? Is there one we can change, and one we can not? A better question IMO is: can something be done now to ensure we never find out who is worse for a free internet?

[edit: if I have exhibited a fundamental misunderstanding of what it takes to start/run/be an independent ISP co. as it relates to control of bandwidth please, educate me, the same goes for the role of mega-server-farm's, and how they could contribute to internet bias]

delecta
07-28-2010, 06:16 AM
Could someone direct me to a link where this conduct is happening, besides China. Now there is a government controlled internet for you.

So we need to do this because at some point AT&T might build into their system a 10 min. load time on glennbeck.com, or Huffpost will come up blank?

And don't you think if this happens and you hear there are no problems on another provider people won't demand it to be fixed?

I think the government has enough things to regulate at the moment.

ILikeRust
07-28-2010, 06:58 AM
You DO understand that the guy was a comedian, at one time, and he has a Harvard Degree? Or did they invalidate his degree because of that picture?

Ah, I see - a Harvard degree makes one smarter and better than all others. And doggone it, people like him!

BTW - don't paint me as an ignorant knee-jerk right-winger, as you would be quite incorrect. Thus, I won't paint you as a reactionary left-winger.

ILikeRust
07-28-2010, 07:01 AM
As I thought.

It's quite sad really.

Yes, it is quite sad that so many people think we need the federal government to protect us from ourselves, to make sure everyone acheives equal results, to make sure nothing bad ever happens to anyone, and to make sure we're compensated if something does.

When he was a comedian, I liked Al Franken - he could be pretty damn funny. He should have stayed a comedian.

ILikeRust
07-28-2010, 07:02 AM
I do believe that the bunny photo was photoshopped.

You would be incorrect in that belief.

ILikeRust
07-28-2010, 07:05 AM
With regulation in place to ensure neutrality in the transmission of content then no-one is at an advantage or disadvantage.

That likely is the scariest statement I've seen on this topic yet. It is only through our uberfuhrer, all-controlling gubmint regulation that we truly can be free.

Your statement is based on the unfounded and incorrect proposition that the state of affairs that "no-one is at an advantage or disadvantage" is somehow preferred or desirable.

You seek that which never has been in all of human history, and for good reason.

I suggest you read "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut. Your proposition is right out of dystopian sci-fi.

ILikeRust
07-28-2010, 07:08 AM
I don't get the impression that you have the slightest idea what 'net neutrality' is all about.

Unless you really DO want your internet provider to decide that web sites YOU want to view will load ten times slower than the ones that they've been paid to promote.....

...or that your favorite site isn't available at all, because the net provider doesn't like the politics of that site.


So get a different ISP. Or start your own.

It would appear you are completely unfamiliar with the history of the United States and the foundational principles of commerce upon which it was created.

Congress does not and should not have unlimited free power to do anything that some fraction of its constituents view as desirable. Delve into the history of the U.S. Constitution, and you will find that what you propose is completely antithetical to its foundational, motivating principles.

ILikeRust
07-28-2010, 07:09 AM
So, you don'r mind if corporations control or censor what you can reach via the net?

Ah, I get it. Teh eevil corparashuns!! Teh interweb!!

Query: What is a corporation?

skuthorp
07-28-2010, 07:22 AM
I canot believe that anyone would hand over their net access to a profit making enterprise with a distinct interest in the right of politcs, purely to support their ideological position. Once given away you will lose it to sectional and commercial interests forever.

Pugwash
07-28-2010, 09:57 AM
That likely is the scariest statement I've seen on this topic yet. It is only through our uberfuhrer, all-controlling gubmint regulation that we truly can be free.

I find this quite a strange view, clouded by ideology.

Consider if you will the transportation highway, not the information highway.

The roads are regulated to ensure the free flow of traffic. Those regulations place no restrictions on where you can drive or what you drive. It doesn't matter if you drive a Pinto or a Bugatti Veyron, your access is exactly the same. This in no way hinders car manufacturers producing cars, or transport companies from doing business.

I doubt you would advocate a transport system that allowed FexEx to own and control I15, favoring their trucks over UPS or not allowing you to drive your Pinto because they didn't like the look of it.

Kaa
07-28-2010, 10:29 AM
Consider if you will the transportation highway, not the information highway.

Sure.


The roads are regulated to ensure the free flow of traffic.

Not only. For example, municipalities have a habit of of posting 25mph signs in places where the local cops can extract a revenue stream from the motorists without too much trouble.


Those regulations place no restrictions on where you can drive or what you drive. It doesn't matter if you drive a Pinto or a Bugatti Veyron, your access is exactly the same.

LOL. In which reality? The government regulates in great detail what kinds of cars it allows onto the road. You think that I can bring any car I like from Europe to the US and just drive it here? As to where, there are lot of restrictions from limits on trucks to HOV lanes.


This in no way hinders car manufacturers producing cars, or transport companies from doing business.

Again, you must be living in some alternate universe. "In no way hinders car manufacturers"..? The list of requirements that a car must fulfill to be permitted to operate in the US is very, very long.

I also note that you conveniently forgot government licensing of people to operate vehicles on the roads. Maybe it would be a good idea for the internet, too? You know, keep the undesirables out, and who could possibly object to taking the internet license away from deadbeat dads and software pirates..?

Kaa

Kaa
07-28-2010, 10:34 AM
I canot believe that anyone would hand over their net access to a profit making enterprise with a distinct interest in the right of politcs, purely to support their ideological position. Once given away you will lose it to sectional and commercial interests forever.

Huh? What do you mean "hand over"? My current net access is through a "profit making enterprise". Has always been so. There are no signs I'm about to "lose it to sectional and commercial interests forever".

On the other hand, looking at history, I see governments MUCH more interested and capable of censorship than corporations. And, by the way, isn't Australian government raring to regulate what Australians can access on the 'net? For example -- purely in the interests of the population, of course -- it seemed to want to ban porn with small-breasted women (http://boingboing.net/2010/01/28/australian-censor-bo.html) :D

Kaa

Pugwash
07-28-2010, 10:49 AM
Kaa, I have noticed that Americans in general are not very good at hypothetical arguments and tend to get bogged down in stupid details, while avoiding the main point which was..


I doubt you would advocate a transport system that allowed FexEx to own and control I15, favoring their trucks over UPS or not allowing you to drive your Pinto because they didn't like the look of it.

However, If you still don't think there are regulations on internet content (and that's NOT what is being discussed here) I suggest you start up a loli site & see where that gets you.

Kaa
07-28-2010, 10:55 AM
Kaa, I have noticed that Americans in general are not very good at hypothetical arguments and tend to get bogged down in stupid details, while avoiding the main point which was..

That point is kinda empty because the corporations RIGHT NOW own and control the information highways and byways, and lo and behold! I can still drive my Pinto anywhere and I don't see much favouring of FedEx over UPS. You're making up a hypothetical threat to the liberty on the 'net, and in my opinion among such hypothetical threats, the danger from the governments is *much* greater than the danger from the corporations.

Oh, and pick better metaphors next time :-)


However, If you still don't think there are regulations on internet content (and that's NOT what is being discussed here) I suggest you start up a loli site & see where that gets you.

That's not a regulation on *internet* content -- that's just a general law that applies to everything. And, of course, loli sites on the 'net exist.

Kaa

Pugwash
07-28-2010, 11:10 AM
I'm inspired by your blind faith in Rupert Murdoch & Ted Turners empires to regulate themselves & remain neutral.

That's worked out sooo well in the past, hasn't it?


;o)





Goats(e) (http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/09/26/goats_lead_wideweb__470x352,0.jpg)

perldog007
07-28-2010, 11:18 AM
I am not sure Mike Masnick is right wing

FCC Ignores Criticism Over Lack Of Transparency; Negotiates Net Neutrality Behind Closed Doors With Industry Execs

from the you-don't-want-this dept

As much as we believe in the importance of a neutral network, we've pointed out over and over again that the last thing people should want is for specific net neutrality rules to be written by the government. For a while now, we've warned that once the lobbyists took over, people supporting net neutrality wouldn't like (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100201/0316427987.shtml) the results. And, of course, everything has been playing out following just that script. The telcos hired a ton of high-power lobbyists (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100621/1051509898.shtml) to cover net neutrality, including eighteen former members of Congress. And, despite arguing for years that net neutrality was evil, the telcos "miraculously" admitted last month they "might agree" (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100617/0244109862.shtml) to regulations... just as long as they got to write the details

Given that, there was a lot of outrage last month for a series of secret meetings between telco/cable execs and the FCC (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/FCC-Takes-Beating-Over-Closed-Door-Net-Neutrality-Meeting-109020). You would think that, given the public beating the FCC got over those meetings it would know better than to hold more. No such luck. Apparently they're right back at it (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/FCC-Holds-More-Closed-Door-Meetings-On-Net-Neutrality-109383).

As important as the concept of a neutral network might be, what comes out of this sausage making process is going to favor the very companies net neutrality regulations are supposed to keep in line. Source (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100716/02412410243.shtml)




Also, given some of your responses Pug, I would argue that maybe you shouldn't be so quick to cast stones at others for the tone or slant of their postings. I would post examples of what I mean, but some of your more acidic replies seem to be no longer with us :D

Kaa
07-28-2010, 11:21 AM
I'm inspired by your blind faith in Rupert Murdoch & Ted Turners empires to regulate themselves & remain neutral.

I don't know why this is blind faith -- the privately owned newspapers, magazines, and TV channels have consistently delivered better and more diverse information to me than government-controlled and regulated media.


That's worked out sooo well in the past, hasn't it?

Why, yes, it did. As opposed to things like the Fairness Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine).


;o) Goats(e) (http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/09/26/goats_lead_wideweb__470x352,0.jpg)

Well, we can get into girls, and tubs, and one cup, and all that :D

Kaa

delecta
07-28-2010, 11:24 AM
I'm inspired by your blind faith in Rupert Murdoch & Ted Turners empires to regulate themselves & remain neutral.

That's worked out sooo well in the past, hasn't it?


;o)





Goats(e) (http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/09/26/goats_lead_wideweb__470x352,0.jpg)

Well with that attitude don't you think that we would be better off if the government regulated/controlled every aspect of our lives?

Actually I think it would be better if the government controlled everything, I could eat an apple and not have to worry about the poisons some evil corporation sprayed on them. I could be certain that the doctor prescribed the proper medication and the pharmacist actually filled that prescription properly.

How nice would it be to not have to worry about anything. :D

nw_noob
07-28-2010, 12:13 PM
I have yet to see an anti-neutrality post in this thread that goes beyond "I don't trust the government."

Personally, I don't trust that the ISP's won't one day deliver biased 'net access for profit. I would like to see rules in place that will ensure that never happens, rather than trying to re-establish neutrality after it is gone.

If somebody can give an argument that goes beyond "keep the damn gubmint out of my interwebz!!!" I'd love to see it... does it even exist? Is that position based on an assumption that there will always be neutral ISP's available to you?

Pugwash
07-28-2010, 12:21 PM
I don't know why this is blind faith -- the privately owned newspapers, magazines, and TV channels have consistently delivered better and more diverse information to me than government-controlled and regulated media.

I'm sure Janet Jackson & NBC would like to hear from you and maybe get their $500,00 back. It's all regulated.

Is there any government controlled media in this country? Has there ever been?




Why, yes, it did. As opposed to things like the Fairness Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine).

I'm not quite sure where in that link there is any evidence that it was a failure. I fact IIRC it's demise led to the 24hr news cycle & infotainment as news and, one could argue, the dumbing down of TV news coverage and the current polarization that we see.




Well, we can get into girls, and tubs, and one cup, and all that :D

Kaa

Yes, it's real. (http://www.inspiredsilver.com/product_images2/948_big.jpg)

:D

Kaa
07-28-2010, 12:29 PM
If somebody can give an argument that goes beyond "keep the damn gubmint out of my interwebz!!!" I'd love to see it... does it even exist?

Net neutrality is a complex issue. Read up a bit on it and you'll see that it's considerably more complicated than "Corporations bad! No, government bad!"

Consider, for example, what exactly would the regulation do. In its simplest form it would prohibit ISPs from giving preference to certain IP packets compared to other IP packets. But what about traffic shaping? It's a valid activity. What about giving preference to streaming video over email? Let's say I'm on cable (which has limited and shared upload bandwidth) and I saturate the upload with my torrents -- can/should the ISP do something about this? What about mobile links with limited bandwidth, shouldn't, say, real-time voice have priority over data? Oh, but that data is actually a Skype voice call, what about it?

As I said, it's complicated and not a simple political issue.

Kaa

Kaa
07-28-2010, 12:33 PM
I'm sure Janet Jackson & NBC would like to hear from you and maybe get their $500,00 back. It's all regulated.

Looks to me like you're undermining your own argument that we need more regulation to enforce neutrality :D



Yes, it's real. (http://www.inspiredsilver.com/product_images2/948_big.jpg)


I think the prize goes to the Time magazine which actually did publish an issue under this cover:

http://joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2004/12/goatse_time.jpg

Kaa

Kaa
07-28-2010, 12:51 PM
....but that is NOTHING like the possibility of monopolistic control of content, not traffic.

Monopolistic control of content is called "intellectual property". I didn't realize you were against it :D

Otherwise, I see a lot of of people waving hands in the air and trying to scare me. But I don't see anything -- can you show me real-life examples of privately-owned ISPs limiting internet content available to me for their commercial advantage? And, as I said before, if we're talking about hypotheticals, governments present much more hypothetical danger than corporations.

Kaa

Pugwash
07-28-2010, 12:54 PM
Looks to me like you're undermining your own argument that we need more regulation to enforce neutrality :D
Kaa

Not really, It just means I am in favor of less regulation of content where the MSM is concerned and I would like to see some regulation to ensure the continued neutrality of the intertubes in the face of some very powerful vested interests.

nw_noob
07-28-2010, 12:56 PM
Net neutrality is a complex issue. Read up a bit on it and you'll see that it's considerably more complicated than "Corporations bad! No, government bad!"

Consider, for example, what exactly would the regulation do. In its simplest form it would prohibit ISPs from giving preference to certain IP packets compared to other IP packets. But what about traffic shaping? It's a valid activity. What about giving preference to streaming video over email? Let's say I'm on cable (which has limited and shared upload bandwidth) and I saturate the upload with my torrents -- can/should the ISP do something about this? What about mobile links with limited bandwidth, shouldn't, say, real-time voice have priority over data? Oh, but that data is actually a Skype voice call, what about it?

As I said, it's complicated and not a simple political issue.

Kaa

I see your point about allocating resources to keep the system working being important, but that's not really what this is about. What's your take on showing favoritism based on ideological grounds?

Would you oppose laws that made it illegal to manipulate upload/download speeds or even prohibit access based on actual content? In other words would a law saying HuffPo has to be treated the same as Fox.com, and socialist rants on YouTube have to run the same as Ron Paul speeches be a bad thing in your eyes?

I like that Wallmart.com and boycottwallmart.com pages both load the same today, and would like to keep it that way. Do you contend that ISP's should be able to accept money from WM to change that if they want to?

Kaa
07-28-2010, 12:59 PM
..and I would like to see some regulation to ensure the continued neutrality of the intertubes in the face of some very powerful vested interests.

I would like not to see new regulation based on theoretical fears which seem ideologically driven to me. If and when the problem actually manifests, we can revisit the issue. In the meantime I continue to be much more suspicious of governments trying to "protect" me for my own good than I am of corporations trying to get a bit more money out of me.

Anyway, it's rather trivial to obfuscate the bits coming down the wire so that my ISP has no idea what do they mean.

Kaa

nw_noob
07-28-2010, 12:59 PM
Monopolistic control of content is called "intellectual property". I didn't realize you were against it :D

Otherwise, I see a lot of of people waving hands in the air and trying to scare me. But I don't see anything -- can you show me real-life examples of privately-owned ISPs limiting internet content available to me for their commercial advantage? And, as I said before, if we're talking about hypotheticals, governments present much more hypothetical danger than corporations.

Kaa

Do you wait until your credit card co. jacks your rate to 50% before you complain about not having adequate protection against usury?

Kaa
07-28-2010, 01:16 PM
What's your take on showing favoritism based on ideological grounds?

See post #58.

And if you're actually talking about ideological and not commercial-advantage grounds, please show me an example of a big US corporation that made a do-or-die business decision on ideological grounds.


Would you oppose laws that made it illegal to manipulate upload/download speeds or even prohibit access based on actual content?

Sigh. First, the issue is not so much content. The scare examples are like an ISP slowing down Skype calls and speeding up its own variety of voice-over-IP service -- and there's no discrimination based on content.

Second, there are good technical and rational-management-of-bandwidth reasons to manipulate upload/download speeds.

Third, prohibiting access based on content is common. Consider child porn or, say, Nazi stuff in Germany.

Fourth, I see nothing horrible in, for example, a specialized ISP marketing itself as "guaranteed child-safe" and promising to filter all porn from the 'net feed.


In other words would a law saying HuffPo has to be treated the same as Fox.com, and socialist rants on YouTube have to run the same as Ron Paul speeches be a bad thing in your eyes?

Yes. I happen to think we have an overabundance of laws and adding one more because someone thinks there's a theoretical danger of some corporations doing potentially bad things in unspecified future is a bad idea.


Do you contend that ISP's should be able to accept money from WM to change that if they want to?

I think that for an ISP that would be complicated way to commit suicide :-)

Kaa

Kaa
07-28-2010, 01:18 PM
Do you wait until your credit card co. jacks your rate to 50% before you complain about not having adequate protection against usury?

I don't WANT an "adequate protection against usury".

Kaa

Kaa
07-28-2010, 01:24 PM
I have no problem with control of intellectual property... by the person who OWNS it.

I actually do, but it's nice to see that you have no problems with something...


I'm worried about the control of intellectual propoert by a corporation who DOESN'T own it.

Well, you can worry about anything you like, but I must admit this particular issue is waaaaay down on my worry list :-)


I think it's better to anticipate the problems, then to wait for them to occur.

Depends on how good your crystal ball is. Do you have any with a proven track record? ;-)

Kaa

nw_noob
07-28-2010, 02:15 PM
And if you're actually talking about ideological and not commercial-advantage grounds, please show me an example of a big US corporation that made a do-or-die business decision on ideological grounds.

I chose the word ideological because business interests and political interests often intersect. It's not just about W.M. using it's influence to block access to boycottwallmart.com, it's also about them having the ability to influence access to news and opinions that are potentially damaging to their bottom line.



Second, there are good technical and rational-management-of-bandwidth reasons to manipulate upload/download speeds.

Third, prohibiting access based on content is common. Consider child porn or, say, Nazi stuff in Germany.

I have no problem with #2, that's perfectly reasonable, as for #3, access to child porn is blocked because we have laws that say it has to be blocked, not because benevolent corporations took it upon themselves to filter that content out. That's good governance.



Fourth, I see nothing horrible in, for example, a specialized ISP marketing itself as "guaranteed child-safe" and promising to filter all porn from the 'net feed.

Yes. I happen to think we have an overabundance of laws and adding one more because someone thinks there's a theoretical danger of some corporations doing potentially bad things in unspecified future is a bad idea.

I think that for an ISP that would be complicated way to commit suicide :-)

Kaa

So it seems you trust that ISP's will do right by the consumer despite there being a possible profit motive to do otherwise. I'm less trusting myself, but it's good to see the other side here, thanks for taking the time to spell it out.

I happen to think that filtering content would only be corporate suicide if the public was aware of what was happening, if the company doing the filtering also blocks the news that reports their filtering, there are no repercussions for their actions, because their actions are never brought to light.

BTW, you're right to say "show me an example of this happening, it's not a real threat"... this discussion is a response to a possible future threat that would jeopardize free speech and the free press, so on this issue I'll ignore my inner libertarian and go with the lefty's. Oh, I also ignore my inner libertarian when it comes to usury, but I guess we'll just have to disagree there too.

Kaa
07-28-2010, 02:36 PM
I chose the word ideological because business interests and political interests often intersect. It's not just about W.M. using it's influence to block access to boycottwallmart.com, it's also about them having the ability to influence access to news and opinions that are potentially damaging to their bottom line.

I am somewhat confused how do you think that "influencing" will work in the context of net neutrality. Do you really imagine that WalMart will supply some blacklists to ISP and the ISP will just block the websites? Or it will selectively block news stories? I don't think this will fly.


So it seems you trust that ISP's will do right by the consumer despite there being a possible profit motive to do otherwise.

Huh? I said nothing of the sort. I trust the ISPs to "do right by the consumer" in exactly the same way I trust any other company in a marketplace. Competition drives them to behave, not any kind of altruism.

I think that at the moment any ISP that tries to filter the 'net feed for ideological or commercial motives will be committing suicide. There doesn't seem to be much profit in that.

Besides, don't forget that there are very rich and powerful corporations (Google or Yahoo, for example) who have strong interests in making sure their websites are NOT filtered by ISPs.


I happen to think that filtering content would only be corporate suicide if the public was aware of what was happening, if the company doing the filtering also blocks the news that reports their filtering, there are no repercussions for their actions, because their actions are never brought to light.

Oh, the public will be well aware. You can't hide such a thing. For one thing, internet is global and people in Europe will be only too happy to point out American censorship, public or private.

For a trivial example, when there were accusations that Comcast was slowing down torrent links on its network because they were "overusing" the bandwidth, tons of people came out of the woodwork, ran lots and lots of test, provided mountains of data, etc.


...so on this issue I'll ignore my inner libertarian and go with the lefty's. Oh, I also ignore my inner libertarian when it comes to usury...

If I were you, I'd throw that dessicated corpse of your inner libertarian out already, unless you're keeping it as a memento of times past... :D

Kaa

Pugwash
07-28-2010, 02:46 PM
Huh? I said nothing of the sort. I trust the ISPs to "do right by the consumer" in exactly the same way I trust any other company in a marketplace. Competition drives them to behave, not any kind of altruism.



You might want to question your trust in companies in a marketplace upon deregulation.

It's long, but I'm sure you're up to it.


It is evident that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has failed to produce the consumer benefits policy makers promised because competition has failed to take hold across the communications industry. The Act's failure is not because, as some have suggested, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was overly regulatory in seeking to create conditions ripe for competition. The fundamental problem is that the huge companies that dominate the telephone and cable TV industries prefer mergers and acquisitions to competition. They have refused to open their markets by dragging their feet in allowing competitors to interconnect, refusing to negotiate in good faith, litigating every nook and cranny of the law, and avoiding head-to-head competition like the plague. .................................................. ..........


http://www.consumersunion.org/telecom/lessondc201.htm

Kaa
07-28-2010, 02:51 PM
My choices are Comcast, Comcast, and Comcast (I'm discounting Verizon DSL, because it's not competitive).

So pretend that Comcast decided to filter your 'net feed and provide access only to the sites it feels you should see.

Wouldn't that suddenly make Verizon very much competitive?


They don't control the ISP's, and have no leverage on them...what the hell are they gonna do, threaten to refuse to route their websites thru them? Commit fiscal suicide out of spite? You have GOT to be kidding!

Imagine that Google blocks access to itself from the Comcast network. Who do you think will fold first, Google or Comcast? :D

Kaa

Kaa
07-28-2010, 02:54 PM
You might want to question your trust in companies in a marketplace upon deregulation.

I have zero problems with regulation that makes sure there is a market. I don't have any particular love for monopolies.

As I said, if and when we see actual filtering of the 'net by ISPs for commercial or political reasons, I'd be willing to revisit the issue.

Kaa

nw_noob
07-28-2010, 03:00 PM
If I were you, I'd throw that dessicated corpse of your inner libertarian out already, unless you're keeping it as a memento of times past... :D

Kaa

Nah, he's not dead, he just learned that all the people calling him loony might have a valid point once in a while.

Pugwash
07-28-2010, 03:05 PM
Imagine that Google blocks access to itself from the Comcast network. Who do you think will fold first, Google or Comcast? :D

Kaa

The obvious answer is Comcast, but then again, I don't know how many people would just shrug and start using Yahoo or Bing. I suspect Google is just a habit rather than a choice for a lot of people.

Kaa
07-28-2010, 03:11 PM
The obvious answer is Comcast, but then again, I don't know how many people would just shrug and start using Yahoo or Bing. I suspect Google is just a habit rather than a choice for a lot of people.

Some people will just shrug, but I think you underestimate the spread of Google's tentacles :D It's not just the search engine -- it's also GMail. And YouTube. And Google Maps (which a lot of third-party web sites use). Despite Norman's silliness, starting a war with Google is pretty much a losing proposition for any ISP.

Kaa

Kaa
07-28-2010, 03:14 PM
If Comcast owns the marketplace in our town, and Verizon's reach is limited, they are far more likely to simply follow Comcast's lead.

I don't think you understand how competition works :-)


That's probably not quite how it would happen. Comcast wouldn't 'drop' Google.... they'd just make it a lot slower than, for example, Bing, if Microsoft is willing to pay more.

I don't think you understood what I said. Comcast indeed wouldn't "drop" Google -- it's Google which will "drop" Comcast.

Kaa

htom
07-28-2010, 03:27 PM
...
So it seems you trust that ISP's will do right by the consumer despite there being a possible profit motive to do otherwise. I'm less trusting myself, but it's good to see the other side here, thanks for taking the time to spell it out.

...

I think that a lot of the ISPs will have multiple demands on their bandwidth, and will make choices. As a customer, I can choose to change ISPs if I disagree with their choices. I cannot, however, choose to change to a different governmental control if I disagree with their choices.

(there's a rumor that the new Financial Control Bill contains a provision that exempts the FTC and/or the SEC from having to respond to FOI requests ....)

RonW
07-29-2010, 07:44 PM
this may add to the list of why not..

http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-9896-0-14-14--.html

nw_noob
07-29-2010, 09:41 PM
I considered posting that story today Rod, it's disturbing stuff alright... but isn't that the antithesis of government intervening to ensure net-neutrality?

Governments can do both good and bad stuff as you know. In my opinion warrant-less seizure of citizens 'net records is bad government, ensuring corporate interests don't filter the net for content (heinous stuff aside of course) is good government. Of course we've gone over this, and we disagree on that last part. I just wanted to point out that the only thing the two issues have in common is that they both involve the government and the internet, the similarity ends there.

RonW
07-29-2010, 09:55 PM
noob..Governments can do both good and bad stuff as you know

Good government, bad government, we only have good government and everyone else has bad government..uhh huhh right..

Jay rockerfeller has tried several times to inject legislation that enables the government to censor, monitor, and remove content from the internet that the government deams as possible security threat. Of course rockerfeller don't want info on the rockerfellers on the net..

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

Now I believe that Kaa told you in another thread to save the libertarian disguise, it is phoney as hell..

nw_noob
07-29-2010, 11:46 PM
Dude are you trying to play dumb or something to bait me?

Making info unavailable is a very bad thing. We frikkin' agree about the story you posted! Net neutrality legislation is the exact opposite of that crap.

You have somehow construed legislation that ensures that the web will always be free to be a bad thing. I don't see things that way. Without such legislation the flow of info on the web could be less than free one day.

Consider it as something of an extra first amendment for web content. In other words, it's legislation to ensure continued freedom, not legislation to trade away freedom for security. For that to be the case you'd have to be giving up something. I think it's a good idea, you think it's just government intrusion into private business, which it is. It's government intruding to telling corporations that they can't be fascist pricks that censor the internet.

Is the freedom you are frothing at the mouth to maintain the freedom to filter web content just like your boy Jay Rock wants to do? Are you wanting to trade your free access to information for his ability to sleep securely in the knowledge that he could buy up some ISP's and filter his name off the web? Because that's what you are arguing for.

Now if you want to pull your absolutist libertarian POV fine, argue that private interests will remain neutral without the government making it mandatory. Kaa did so quite eloquently earlier in this thread, and also conceded that he would consider such things worthy of discussion if there were a pressing threat to net neutrality at a later date. I see his point, and think it is valid even though I favor passing a law before a crisis necessitates it. You on the other hand saw the words "good" and "government" in the same sentence and apparently developed a reading comprehension problem.