Net Neutrality Supporters Hammered In Elections 402
Pickens writes "Gigi Sohn writes in the Huffington Post that one of the results of the mid-term elections was the defeat of Representative Rick Boucher, the current Chair of the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, widely recognized as one of the most tech-savvy and intelligent members of Congress, and long an advocate for consumers on a wide variety of communications and intellectual property issues. Boucher has been the best friend of fair use on Capitol Hill writes Sohn. In 2002, 2003 and 2007, Boucher introduced legislation to allow consumers to break digital locks for lawful purposes, a fair use exception to the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and while the odds against that legislation passing were always great, Boucher understood the symbolic importance of standing up for consumers' rights to use technology lawfully. 'As important, he served as a moderating force both on the House Energy & Commerce and Judiciary Committees against those many members of Congress willing to give large media companies virtually everything on their copyright wish lists.'"
One step forward (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Lobbyists aren't howling at the door, they're inside, having tea and biscuits.
That's the PEOPLE howling at the door, like a dog begging to be let back in, but stuck out in the rain to starve.
Re: (Score:2)
Are we really linking to stories at the left-wing Huffington Post? I can't imagine people being okay with Brietbart editorials being linked here.
It seems as if pro net neutrality just the assumed position at Slashdot or something. Not everyone here thinks alike or agrees such legislation was ever necessary.
It's just that I don't want to have to get the Comcast - sorry - Xfinity Premium Super Latinum package to read Slashdot at more than dial-up speed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Huffington Post (Score:4, Insightful)
Curious about where you live... You have only cable as an option, no DSL, no 3G, no satellite, no WiMAX? Just - cable?
I'm not sure that even matters. Imagine a future where an ISP can charge you monthly and also charge Google/Facebook/etc. to get on their high-speed list. What other ISP in my area, no matter how they deliver the data to me, is going to pass on maximizing their profits by doing the same?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because it won't work like that.
You'll have the same 2-ish options you have now, except Google will need to have a higher revenue somehow because you won't be able to connect to Google at a reasonable speed unless Google pays your ISP as well for the honor of letting you connect to them without having their connection degraded.
It'll all but kill ad-supported web services entirely.
Personally, I'd offer the ISPs the option to be a common carrier -- if you're a common carrier by definition you can't tinker wit
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My condo association is largely run by idiots who signed a contract with Comcast to get service. No other provider in my area is willing or able to provide service. And I live in the beating heart of Chicago, in one of the neighborhoods with the highest population densities and median income in the city.
WiMAX/4G I can get, but the latency makes online gaming impossible (no thank you, 2000MS ping times!). Satellite is the same thing, and also has other issues (board rules about dishes, I'm in the midst of a
Re:left-wing Huffington Post (Score:5, Insightful)
Right... rather than simply treat the article on its factual merits, go after the source of the article. Brilliant! Did you invent that strategy yourself?
Not: it's called ad hominem. It's also a debate tactic used to implement tribalism/partisanism/racism/sexism/prejudice: self-hypnotic words to delude yourself into believing your opponent is less-than-human; once you've managed that stunt, why bother to listen to any of his arguments, even the otherwise cogent ones? Even better if you can also delude and convince others at the same time, because there's great strength in delusional numbers.
Congratulations to you for learning another trick to maintain your bias and mislead others.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1) If a news source has marketed itself as a source of with a liberal bias (huffpo) or conservative bias (Fox News) then it is completely rational to double-check anything they say. Ad hominem attacks are perfectly acceptable and warranted if the source has explicit motives for it's speech. Read up a little more on the nuances of what an ad hominem attack really implies.
2) Your response is entirely premised on terrible logical fallacies. You link the OP with "tribalism/partisanism/racism/sexism/prejudice
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I "linked the OP" with that behavior because it's precisely how he was behaving. I didn't disparage the person, I criticized his behavior. Get your semantics straight.
Whether a source advertises a particular bias is largely irrelevant to its credibility. A source is in fact being more forthright by advertising it. Knowing the bias of a source in advance, it's easier to weigh the veracity of its statements. It's the ones that don't advertise it that are deserving of scorn. Regardless, ad hominem is NEV
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea that you only find it rational to double check a source that has marketed itself as a source of bias is disturbing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
An ad hominem attack/argument is never salient in a rational discourse, regardless of a stated bent from the source. In rational discourse, ideas are the thing.
This is simply incorrect. Let me give you some examples:
- If a source portends to be unbiased and is discovered to have motives in their speech, then ad hominem is OK.
- If a source claims to be an expert on a matter, and is not, then ad hominem is OK.
IN essence, if I am relying on my reputation to make the argument, then I am exposing myself to my o
Huffington Post is fine (Score:4, Funny)
It is a proper news organization. We need to promote it more. No one has a problem with it.
Re:One step forward (Score:5, Insightful)
We need politicians to keep our political parties going strong.
We need politicians to bring home the bacon: giving our hard-spent tax dollars back to us in the form of gigantic projects named after themselves.
We need politicians to take the lead on critical issues like "family values" and gays in the military.
We need politicians to look after us and protect us from hurting ourselves.
We need politicians to do whatever the richest corporations want them to do.
Where would we be without politicians?
"net neutrality" is control play (Score:3, Insightful)
long an advocate for consumers on a wide variety of communications and intellectual property issues.
The loss of a friend for fair use was sad, but I think a few others may have come in so perhaps that will balance out. On the whole the Democrats were always befriended by Hollywood in ways Republicans were not, so I would hope a lot of new Republicans would be cool to the MPAA and other organizations...
That said, "Net Neutrality" is not about what people think. It's about bringing the internet, and specifically ISP's, under more regulation to solve a problem that doesn't exist. How you you carefully craft regulation to solve a problem that doesn't exist?
The biggest ISP no-no we have seen was Comcast and torrent tomfoolery. But no net neutrality ideas under discussions would have stopped that, because in that case Comcast forged traffic, they didn't limit anything. It was your network's stack response to forged packets that caused a slowdown.
So even if you support regulation of the internet and the foot in the door for greater control over allowable traffic that brings with it, even if you support that - shouldn't we at least wait and see IF issues arise so we can construct regulation that actually solves a problem instead of just being there to make us all feel warm and fuzzy?
Re:"net neutrality" is control play (Score:5, Insightful)
because in that case Comcast forged traffic, they didn't limit anything. It was your network's stack response to forged packets that caused a slowdown.
To a reasonable person, that's like saying "My plastic bag over your head isn't keeping you from breathing. It's your body's response to increasing levels of carbon dioxide that's causing you to black out."
It's a cryin' shame our country is run by lawyers, rather than reasonable people.
Re:"net neutrality" is control play (Score:4, Informative)
Democrats may have greater support among the Hollywood celebrities that are visible to the public, but I don't think there is much evidence that they have closer ties to the megacorps that actually own the studios, who are who the MPAA represents.
Forging packets as a mechanism to foil the use of any lawful software or device would violate every net neutrality proposal I've seen, all of which prohibit ISPs from preventing the customer from using any lawful device or software without regard to the mechanism by which that is done.
Re:"net neutrality" is control play (Score:5, Informative)
Let me enlighten you...
Source Obama Taps 5th RIAA Lawyer to Justice Dept [wired.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't remotely relevant to the issue I raised about questions about whether Democrats are really closer than Republicans to the megacorporations that run the studios, who are the people that the MPAA/RIAA/etc. represent. You've pointed to the Obama administration hiring people who previously the RIAA hired to represent them, which isn't relevant to any comparative question, and isn't relevant to proximity to corporations the *AAs represent.
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't remotely relevant to the issue I raised about questions about whether Democrats are really closer than Republicans to the megacorporations that run the studios, who are the people that the MPAA/RIAA/etc. represent. You've pointed to the Obama administration hiring people who previously the RIAA hired to represent them, which isn't relevant to any comparative question, and isn't relevant to proximity to corporations the *AAs represent.
This Democratic prick [wikipedia.org] is all the media companies need.
Re:"net neutrality" is control play (Score:5, Informative)
but I don't think there is much evidence that [Democrats] have closer ties to the megacorps that actually own the studios
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?cycle=2010&ind=B02
Time Warner $20,266,434 88% (D) 11% (R)
Walt Disney Co $11,643,166 68% (D) 31% (R)
Vivendi $4,682,771 66% (D) 32% (R)
Sony Corp $338,730 80% (D) 19% (R)
DreamWorks SKG $198,500 100% (D) 0% (R)
Warner Music Group $178,600 88% (D) 12% (R)
TV / Movies / Music overall 2010: 73% (D) 23% (R)
Not a recent phenomenon either; that ratio has been consistent for years. Please don't take my word for it; the data is right there for you to investigate (and then discount/ignore.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
quick! someone funnel that money through a non-profit which doesnt have to disclose where the money comes from!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
None of that is entertainment industry money, those are pretty much all pure communication players, and indeed companies that would stand on different sides of a net neutrality debate.
Re: (Score:2)
Barbara Boxer, who has consistently pushed for more restrictive copyright. Even as someone who usually votes Democrat, the only reason I voted for her is that Carly Fiorina nearly brought a major Fortune 500 company to its knees, and we really don't need someone that bad at managing a business helping run our federal government. I was all set to vote against her until she ended up as the G.O.P. candidate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was all set to vote against her until she ended up as the G.O.P. candidate.
If you're going to refer to two women in the same sentence, please do not use pronouns for both. Since you were last talking about Carly Fiorina, the first "her" should be referencing Fiorina. Since that makes no sense in context, you should have simply said "I was all set to vote against Barbara Boxer until Carly Fiorina ended up as the G.O.P. candidate."
It's the only arrangement that makes any sense.
Carry on!
Re: (Score:2)
No! We want to feel warm and fuzzy!
Re:"net neutrality" is control play (Score:5, Funny)
That said, "Net Neutrality" is not about what people think. It's about bringing the internet, and specifically ISP's, under more regulation to solve a problem that doesn't exist. How you you carefully craft regulation to solve a problem that doesn't exist?
So by your logic, I shouldn't get the flu vaccine this year?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't get the vaccine every year, and look at me!
*shiver, shiver, spew*
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, "Net Neutrality" is not about what people think. It's about bringing the internet, and specifically ISP's, under more regulation to solve a problem that doesn't exist. How you you carefully craft regulation to solve a problem that doesn't exist?
This.
If I was to set up a hundred different machines all over the internet to hammer a single IP address with packets, usually that would be considered a Denial of Service (DoS) attack (even if it doesnt succeed in denying service.) Well thats exactly what Bittorrent does, right?
Even if ISP's gave each of their users 10 times as bunch bandwidth as they do now, the problem would remain. Bittorrent's goal would still be to fully saturate the receiving pipe, and the only barrier to that happening in a lac
Duh, it was a conservative voterbase (Score:2, Funny)
The Dems were already in power. Midterm elections tend to be overwhelmingly biased to the party principles of the second-largest party. Now add all the FUD spread by the Tea Party et al. Nobody should be surprised that the resulting observations are all leaning Right.
"Liberal" stances like Net Neutrality and CA's Prop 19 (though neither of those are completely economically liberal, they are associated that way) suffer in elections like this. This is not a trend that you should expect to see continue i
It will be okay. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It will be okay. (Score:5, Funny)
You can't fill a void, but you can fill a *void, provided it points to a valid address.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'm kind of serious about it. I don't have delusions of victory; however, I do think I have a good point to make and a novel idea. Some people just may go for it. You could very well be hearing about me as one of the more novel candidates in a couple years.
And actually, now that Hickenlooper is not going to be mayor anymore, I have heard a rumor of one someone I know running for mayor (and will probably stand a very good shot of winning). I can play the nepotism game too.
Voter understanding of Net Neutrality is nil. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Voter understanding of Net Neutrality is nil. (Score:5, Insightful)
Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Government Control, Government Sponsored, Government, or whatever, then the general consensus is to hate it.
We don't want no government controlling MY internet. I'd rather trust big-company-x-with-no-ulterior-motives-whatsoever. God Bless America.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yes, it's much better to have the big-governemtn-with-no-ulterior-motives-whatsoever control all the companies' data lines.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ideally, the company gets maximum profits possible in the market - the best companies are the ones which reap the most money.
There is no reason for a company to do anything which will hurt its bottom line permanently. Always keep that in mind. If a company decides that it is supporting self-regulated net neutrality, its doing it to 1-up the competitors and get more money.
Now I realise that the governmen
Re:Voter understanding of Net Neutrality is nil. (Score:4, Insightful)
The internet works in a rather different manner to many services - not only because we're basing a lot of technology, comminication et cet upon it - but also because its more of a gateway thing - its a means to an end.
The fact that its such a vital area - similar to electricity, the road network, plumbing et cetera makes me think that it shouldn't be handed over on a silver platter to just anyone's whims.
What if the electrical company (assume the only one present in that region) randomly decided that people with more than 2 people in the family should pay more? That's the sort of thing. How do you protest against that? Except for lighting candles , there is no way.
In conclusion - its a very important connection, which you are handing over as a monopoly in certain regions - which are a 'gateway' of means to the end - they're not really supplying any content themselves. Therefore it shouldn't be treated in the same way as any other service.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't want no government controlling MY internet.
This is correct.
The problem is that the people running the pro net-neutrality campaign are incredibly incompetent. Americans don't like big corporations controlling things either. Basically, Americans don't like anyone controlling anything. Unless it's them.
Re: (Score:2)
No they were not (Score:5, Insightful)
Net Neutrality was not on the radar of these voters. Support for net neutrality didn't hurt or save anyone.
Re:No they were not (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait. You actually believe that voters voted on substantive issues?
These candidates were targeted by the corporations who don't want net neutrality. They heavily funded their opponents, no matter what nonsense the candidate's campaign advisors chose to use as campaign propaganda.
You can bet none of the candidates even mentioned net neutrality. The supporters avoid it because it's complicated and will get them only a few votes. The opponents because it's complicated and if they actually explained it it would actually drive votes to the supporters.
But while net neutrality was never an issue to the voters, you can bet it was the issue to some of the biggest donors.
Elections following the Citizens United decision will absolutely not be about the issues, and will only resemble democracy in form.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Wait. You actually believe that voters voted on substantive issues?
if by substantive you mean, repealing the health care bill, reinstating tax brakes from former presidents, and making sure the gays can't get a civil union (so they can make health care decisions for their partners, and be protected by the 5th amendment on the whole couples thing), then yes.
personally I'd like all the money from GM, and the banks, and the rest of the handouts back, and I'd like to build, by employing local citizens and residents, a national high speed rail system. In times of economic hards
Re:No they were not (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Net Neutrality was not on the radar of these voters. Support for net neutrality didn't hurt or save anyone.
Due to the Supreme Court ruling regarding corporate sponsored advertising and donations - any stance against a heavily moneyed interest hurt a politician holding that stance. Since Net Neutrality was something of particular important to AT&T I would not be surprised if they funded a number of attack ads against Boucher on other topics to increase his chances of losing. Similarly any politician who expressed opinions contrary to Net Neutrality when their opponent did not, likely was the beneficiary of
This was not an election where... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The 'will of the people' that caused generic 'voting against whoever is in office' was no more specific than 'we want economy to be better'. It really didn't matter who was in office, 'the other guys' were going in since since voters have no confidence in the economy. It's not like the people in office said 'you know what, let's willfully aim for no improvement of the economy'. In fact, I doubt any particular measure by the government would have helped the economy that much. Between private industry bei
NN is incompatible with "unlimited" data plans (Score:4, Insightful)
With "unlimited" data plans, the incentive for the ISP is to find ways to keep you from saturating the network connection. Making the network non-neutral is one way to accomplish this.
With pay-as-you-go data plans, the incentive for the ISP is to eliminate anything that prevents you from saturating your network connection. This means not slowing down traffic based on origin or destination (in other words, making the network completely neutral), and upgrading the infrastructure when it makes economic sense for them.
We can't have our cake and eat it, too.
Re:NN is incompatible with "unlimited" data plans (Score:5, Informative)
If I am paying for an unlimited plan with say 4GB/s - then I want an ultimated plan with 4GB/s. If I am 'saturating the network' in this manner - they should not have offered this plan at those speeds.
Now, if I really am causing a problem - then if they just throttle ALL my speed would be fair. If they decide to throttle (say) most of the internet, but give me great speeds on a sponsored site - that has nothing to do with me using up 'too much' internet.
Re: (Score:2)
With net neutrality, every ISP has an incentive to deliver the best service for the lowest price without screwing you out of what you paid for or conning you into paying more because you underestimated the bandwidth you use.
And with net neutrality no ISP has an incentive to manipulate opinion in its subscriber base by throttling data from opinionated websites.
Allowing your ISP to become the arbiter of your knowledge is not why the government (through DARPA) invented the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
No, It was invented in order to provide redundancy of control in case a surprise attack destroyed a control center.
Re: (Score:2)
Your ISP is the one directing that attack, and Net Neutrality is the redundancy you need to protect your control center's connection.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be a way, but it is an inferior way. A better system is to maintain neutrality (ie: no bias towards or away from any specific source or destination) but to impose fairness. The most trivial form of fairness is to round-robin between inputs. One input, one packet. And simply rotate round. This ensures that nobody can flood the network (the excess packets would block the sender but nobody else). More advanced forms of fairness involve things like Hierarchical Fair Service Curve (to give everyone equal
Re: (Score:2)
then they need to be hit for false advertising, as where I come from "unlimited" means "without limits", which yes means, saturated pipe 24/7/365.
Break digital locks for lawful purposes (Score:2, Insightful)
So they pass laws that outlaw breaking locks on things you physically own, and now they're being oh-so-gracious to "allow" us to break them, without putting us in jail for it?
We're on the short bus to hell (Score:3, Interesting)
The faster the better. Then we can set about rebuilding..in some far, distant future
Thankfully... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Worst PR EVER (Score:5, Insightful)
The basic problem with the net neutrality battle is that it is called "net neutrality". The average American hears this when you say net neutrality:
net = COMPLICATED COMPUTER THINGY
neutrality = Switzerland
So it's no surprise at all that people don't care, and the Republicans don't get it. Want to change the game? Make this all about Online Freedom and make the story how greedy carriers want to take away freedom / violate my rights. It's about explaining how carriers want to LIMIT WHERE YOU CAN GO, CHARGE YOU FOR ACCESS TO THINGS YOU HAVE NOW, AND TAKE AWAY YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO DO BUSINESS ONLINE.
People aren't that stupid, but they are not that well educated. If you make your case using language that the average Wal*Mart consumer can understand, you can get anything you want out of Washington because those are the people that change their minds in elections and cause congresspeople to lose their jobs as they did yesterday. Nine out of ten times when you see voters support something that is bad for them, it's because one side used language like "net neutrality" to sell their side of the story.
It's all, OK, of course! (Score:3, Funny)
Basically, the 2010 election only set the stage for a very early (as in this afternoon) start to the 2012 election cycle. On the plus side, the politicians will be so busy campaigning that we might not have to worry about them passing anything we don't like because they may well not pass anything at all (beyond their own gas and hot air of course). On the minus side, the politicians are already so busy campaigning that they might never pass anything at all.
Provided they don't find some way to completely destroy the world, this might indeed be the government we deserve...
Re:Net neutrality is not capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Net neutrality is not capitalism (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, if you live anywhere besides the city, its pretty common (out of the five towns I've lived in the past two years, all except one) to have only two providers - and one is often dial-up. So without net neutrality your choices are "slow for non-corporate websites" and "slow for all websites"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That said the reason you only have 1 provider is probably because one company was granted a local monopoly by the government
That said, in most places the reason you have ANY provider is because the government promised they wouldn't have to compete.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think he was being facetious.
It's hard to tell. So many libertarians are on the cusp of self-parody.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Net neutrality is not capitalism (Score:4, Interesting)
no one(well almost no one) is discussing having a govt ISP. just having the govt own the wires, like they do the roads, and letting anyone provide services(cars) for them. Anyone that wants to use the wires(roads) can as long as the services(cars) meet certain requirements(safety belts, and a license plate, and tires with tread).
Re:Net neutrality is not capitalism (Score:4, Insightful)
no one(well almost no one) is discussing having a govt ISP. just having the govt own the wires, like they do the roads, and letting anyone provide services(cars) for them.
You could do that, but it's entirely unncessary.
The simplest and best solution is to force current ISPs to separate into two companies.
One company owns the wires and leases them to anyone at cost + x% profit.
The other company has to compete like everyone else.
It'd bring actual competition to the internet/tv/VOIP market.
Re:Net neutrality is not capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Net neutrality is not capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Libertarians think everything is the government's fault, even blaming them for monopolies. But the fact is, this is a natural monopoly. You are not going to have half a dozen companies laying competing fiber networks do your door. (And without the government imposing eminent domain, you won't even have ONE). The choice isn't between a government-regulated monopoly vs a thriving marketplace, it's between a government-regulated monopoly vs. an unregulated monopoly. Free markets are great for most things, but the government must be involved with infrastructure at some level. Maybe better wireless technology will help the situation, one day.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but you're also not telling the whole story. In many cases, these are private companies that have invested literally billions of dollars in infrastructure. While governments have granted some concessions along the way in order to facilitate the build out of these networks, to now turn around and take these billion-dollar investments over and tell these companies what they can and cannot do with them...it's tantamount to robbery. And why? Look at all of the posts
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Many people would love to offer WISP type services to compete with landlines, or even to purchase land to construct new landlines to compete with the local telecom infrastructure.
Sadly, this often results in being sued for violation of artificial monopolies granted through franchise agreements. Additionally, there is natural scarity in the EM spectrum which limits the former option in regard to the FCC, and already existant providers who purchase spectrum even if they dont intend to use it, since it prevent
Re:Net neutrality is not capitalism (Score:4, Informative)
You're also not telling the whole story: Those weren't just "some concessions" to build the networks that were tiny. AT&T's network was built out over the years with government subsidies at the national, state and local levels. The cable company networks were built out with government concessions... that they would have some say in how fair the network would be by being able to hold them accountable through their franchise contracts.
The government gave the companies this money to build their networks, then the networks went out and got the rules changed (state level franchise contracts, no more public access, no more inexpensive cable for low-income residents, etc), and now the networks are saying "you have zero say in your investments". THAT'S tantamount to robbery... of the taxpayers.
Re:Net neutrality is not capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
No
Libertarians think that REGULATING an entire INDUSTRY because of POTENTIAL problems is tyranny. IT is no different than "security theater" in the airports. You don't like it when it applies to you, but you're so willing to apply it to everyone else as long as it doesn't apply to you (never mind that it eventually will).
Cable, Telephone are monopolies because people in government have no clue how to manage natural monopolies (utilities). City should own the INFRASTRUCTURE and auction the lease off to the utility company for 5, 10, 15, or 25 years (depending on type) and define the proper "service level agreement" they want for their citizens.
IF we did ... say TELCO this way, I'd have Fiber to my house already, because it would be installed per city regulations and service would be give to the company that offered me the best service bits for my price range.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're sounding as though any regulations are the epitome of evil.
Most if not all businesses are regulated in some way, and it's a damn good thing they are. Otherwise, you'd get gas stations selling gallons of gas that were less than the standard gallon as a way of making prices appear low, you'd buy groceries and get human meat marketed as beef, or you'd go to the bank and find that the contents of your bank account had disappeared because the bank was going under. And these aren't theoretical, but exactly
Re: (Score:2)
to build out a network that they were supposed to maintain and let anyone use, or provide services on.
Re:Net neutrality is not capitalism (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Net neutrality is not capitalism (Score:5, Informative)
Under capitalism, the providers get to provide whatever traffic shaping they want. If you don't like it, get a another provider.
This is not a provider issue, this is about who owns the Internet backbone. The company with the biggest portion of the backbone wins. I recommend reading up on the subject: http://advice.cio.com/who_owns_the_internet_we_have_a_map_that_shows_you
Re:Net neutrality is not capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea wasn't a corporocracy.
Also, 'another provider' won't work if:
1. Its the only provider in your area
2. The large companies agree with each other on what they're blocking
I'm pretty sure the RIAA/MPAA have enough resources to turn the larger ISPs over to their side, then certain sites and technologies magically start disappearing.
Re: (Score:2)
3. Which areas they are going to serve.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Net neutrality is not capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Net neutrality is not capitalism (Score:5, Funny)
American democracy explained: the people want stuff for free. One side says "you get to have stuff but you have to pay for it." The other side says, "if you don't want to pay for anything, you shouldn't have to get anything." So every couple years, the voters alternate between "Waahh! I want more stuff!" or "Waahh! I don't like spending money!" It doesn't have any more to do with theoretical ideals of capitalism this time around than it did with theoretical ideals about socialism or progress last time around.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Right, so make each vote be multiplied by the number of dollars in taxes you paid last year.
Problem solved. No more looting.
Y'all want to live in Denmark (Score:4, Informative)
Somehow it seems like this wouldn't be a problem if you could just divide the country regionally between these two philosophies
I think the left-wing half is called "Scandinavia" ;-)
Interesting factoid: in a recent episode of The Young Turks featured on Best of the Left, Cenk (the host of TYT) talks about wealth distributions. Americans think the richest 20% of the people own 59% of the wealth, they want the richest 20% to own 32% (59 and 32 are averages among the asked), and in fact the richest 20% own 84% of the wealth. [32, 59, 84: IIRC]
In Denmark, the richest 20% own 34% of the wealth, see http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Europe/Denmark-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html [nationsencyclopedia.com]
You're welcome over here; we talk english reasonably good, the food's nice, the tax rate is high and the weather is shit during the winter but the people are friendly and trusting. When you've got enough you don't need to squeeze more out of others, and when squeezing isn't the norm people don't have role models to learn it from. [We're like the Canada of Europe :D]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"If you don't like it, get a another provider"
Like the one that doesn't exist? Access to a stable internet connection has become important to the lives of many (some even having jobs that revolve around it). Competition has failed (no surprise there). I mean, sure, the government having complete control over it isn't good either, but something must be done.
Re: (Score:2)
no govt provider, just govt lines, that they lease at a small amount above cost(tax) to anyone that wants it, at publicly announced rates.
Re:Net neutrality is not capitalism (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a third option. I refer to it as the "single payer public option" just to get up the ire of the Tea Party folks. It's remarkably simple:
This takes the infrastructure costs out of the equation, making it possible to have substantial competition even in smaller markets. More importantly, however, it means that the government is not in control over the content because the government is not the ISP, and after ten years, the government is not even involved except in hiring somebody to run it. The key part of this is nonprofit. By taking the profit motive out of the equation, this ensures maximum areal coverage for minimum cost, yet does so in a way that minimizes the government's control over the infrastructure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Net neutrality is not capitalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Want a list?
There are probably a few other things I'm not thinking of, but that's enough.
This isn't at all like municipal Wi-Fi. Municipal Wi-Fi doesn't work (except if it is free) for three reasons:
Thus, except for people who regularly use a laptop for a significant amount of time in a place that provides no free Wi-Fi, municipal Wi-Fi doesn't make sense as a paid service, and certainly not as an alternative to existing ISPs. Fiber, by contrast, does not have any of these fundamental problems. Its only real downside is the cost of infrastructure construction and maintenance. This sort of scheme has been tried for fiber in several communities around the U.S., and last I was aware, it was working remarkably well everywhere it has been tried.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Competition has failed (no surprise there).
It failed because of a regulatory environment that was specifically crafted to discourage or eliminate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Under capitalism, the providers get to provide whatever traffic shaping they want. If you don't like it, get a another provider. If you only have one choice, well, that's part of the system, too. The people have spoken: Capitalism rules, this touchy-feely stuff like "net neutrality" is out the window.
State sanctioned monopolies are not part of laze fare capitalism. If real competition were allowed I would agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
And with that competition i would have 10 different trenches in my yard with 7 different "standards" none of which work together.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, let them shape and block, and let them loose their common carrier status. One without the other is not OK, which is what they are wanting to do.
Re: (Score:2)
"This is a guy who doesnt even know how to connect an external USB hard drive to his PC"
Sadly, a great number of people appear to be completely technologically inept. Ignorant to how things work, it is so easy for them to be taken advantage of (such as your brother in law).
Re:nothing neutral on either side (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about forcing anyone to do anything, it's about forcing corps(which aren't a person) to do nothing based on some rules.
Want to see slashdot*, google, youtube, hulu, farmville, and facebook, those are available on the super ++good platinum package that is an extra $300 a month and requires a special "router" that will require you to lease it at $45 a month, and to use that router you will need the professional internet package, only $70/month but you can watch all the "ondemand" you want from ondemand.comcast.net for the low price of $30 a month with a free modem. XBox live and PSN are only $100 a month if you want those services.
*Includes goatse.cx for the full slashdot experiance
Don't think it will happen? I'm sure it will if we let them.
Re:yeah (Score:5, Funny)
The right wing goes after the stupid voters. Part of their platform is anti-intellectualism. Its pretty fucked up.
The left wing goes after poor people's votes by promising them goodies we can no longer afford (if we ever really could.)
So yeah, it's pretty fucked up, but it's a bi-partisan process.
Re:yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know. Crying "racism" to every substantive issue seems to me "going after the stupid voters". You know, the left wing says "The Tea Party are racists" and it works, because stupid people think Marco Rubio and Tim Scott are white??? (both won).
Suffice it to say, there are STUPID people on BOTH sides of the isle. And it is anti intellectualism that denies that both sides are doing the same thing. They do it, because it works. BOTH SIDES.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of the network neutrality proposals explicitly allow Verizon to prioritize the on demand packets.
The logic goes like this: The phone and TV are completely separate services from the Internet Service. (You can get FIOS without the Internet, despite seeming pointless). They are allowed to prioritize them differently from the internet service. They see the situation as the same as Comcat's cable Internet, where the TV and internet are separate services, with the Internet service merely using the spare ban