8 ms·

Wait... this doesn't add up for me: "[This will] limit fraud and streamline online transactions, leading to a surge in Web commerce" - Is this really that big

Wait... this doesn't add up for me: "[This will] limit fraud and streamline online transactions, leading to a surge in Web commerce" - Is this really that big of a factor in constraining online retail, or is there a greater chance of it imposing stupid rules. Who's behind this? "Verizon Communications Inc., Google Inc., PayPal Inc., Symantec Corp. and AT&T" - Oh yea, this sounds perfectly benevolent... But who's overseeing this? "[McConnell,] a senior counselor..." "Dept. Homeland Security..." "big reduction in the size of Internet help desks" - Since when is it the DHS's job to worry about internet help desks? Who else wants this? "Clippinger..." "Board member... "advises...Equifax...PWC..." Nothing to see here... I may be tin-foil hat about this, but it seems like where the companies (incl. GOOG) are trying to take net neutrality - into a controllable space with gov't teeth... http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jclippinger http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jclippinger

waterlesscloud 16y ago
You'll just be able to use your government issued id to make your book purchases on Amazon. Sounds good!
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  You'll be able to use your government issued id and your credit card to buy stuff on Amazon that now you have to buy with ... your credit card.
javert 16y ago
but it seems like where the companies (incl. GOOG) are trying to take net neutrality - into a controllable space with gov't teeth... This is why I'm opposed to net neutrality. Net neutrality has always been about "a controllable space with gov't teeth." Net "neutrality" is a contradiction in terms because it requires the government and corporate cronies to make it work, and the government and corporate cronies are not neutral. It's unbelievable how the liberal crowd buys it, hook, line, and sinker. I hate to use a corny Star Wars quote but it's appropriate, something like this: "Liberty always dies to the sound of applause."
- nickpinkston 16y ago
  Yea, it's hard to say. Idealistically, I'm against NN on those grounds, but pragmatically, I tend to think some type of net neutrality may be able to prevent the internet from going the way of cable TV. To put it in utilitarian terms, I'd say the net benefit of NN > than the losses of possible stifled tech innovation and new law for corporatism - the latter already bought by them anyway. In the end - I'd love to have something like mandatory bulk-rate sales of the infrastructure rights, with a co-op managing a large % of capacity, for any company with X% of end-user customers (or similar measure).
  - pyre 16y ago
    > prevent the internet from going the way of cable TV Not sure what you mean by this? Preventing government-granted local/regional monopolies? That seems to argue against government intervention.
    - chc 16y ago
      When you phrase it that vaguely, you can make anything sound like anything else. Oh, you're into carbon-based lifeforms? I know an amoeba you'll get along with well.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- Natsu 16y ago
  > Net neutrality has always been about "a controllable space with gov't teeth." Eh? No. It was formed as a reaction to plans announced by the big telcos to monetize traffic flowing through their networks. Specifically, they were going to hobble the connection speeds of any popular website like YouTube unless they were paid money. So people who weren't even their customers could have their traffic throttled merely because it happened to cross their network. At the time, everyone from the ACLU to the Christian Coalition was outraged by this naked money grab. Basically, almost everyone hated the idea. Then a bunch of lobbyists came into play and split us up about what we should do in response. So you have the current false choice of "let the government regulate the internet" and "let free enterprise screw everyone over." What everyone wants is an internet where a suddenly popular site only has to pay its own ISP for bandwidth, not one where every single network operator comes to them for a handout saying, "That's a nice website you got there. Would be a shame if anything happened to it." Getting there is the hard part.

waterlesscloud 16y ago

You'll just be able to use your government issued id to make your book purchases on Amazon. Sounds good!

joe_the_user 16y ago
You'll be able to use your government issued id and your credit card to buy stuff on Amazon that now you have to buy with ... your credit card.

javert 16y ago

but it seems like where the companies (incl. GOOG) are trying to take net neutrality - into a controllable space with gov't teeth... This is why I'm opposed to net neutrality. Net neutrality has always been about "a controllable space with gov't teeth." Net "neutrality" is a contradiction in terms because it requires the government and corporate cronies to make it work, and the government and corporate cronies are not neutral. It's unbelievable how the liberal crowd buys it, hook, line, and sinker. I hate to use a corny Star Wars quote but it's appropriate, something like this: "Liberty always dies to the sound of applause."

nickpinkston 16y ago
Yea, it's hard to say. Idealistically, I'm against NN on those grounds, but pragmatically, I tend to think some type of net neutrality may be able to prevent the internet from going the way of cable TV. To put it in utilitarian terms, I'd say the net benefit of NN > than the losses of possible stifled tech innovation and new law for corporatism - the latter already bought by them anyway. In the end - I'd love to have something like mandatory bulk-rate sales of the infrastructure rights, with a co-op managing a large % of capacity, for any company with X% of end-user customers (or similar measure).
- pyre 16y ago
  > prevent the internet from going the way of cable TV Not sure what you mean by this? Preventing government-granted local/regional monopolies? That seems to argue against government intervention.
  - chc 16y ago
    When you phrase it that vaguely, you can make anything sound like anything else. Oh, you're into carbon-based lifeforms? I know an amoeba you'll get along with well.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
Natsu 16y ago
> Net neutrality has always been about "a controllable space with gov't teeth." Eh? No. It was formed as a reaction to plans announced by the big telcos to monetize traffic flowing through their networks. Specifically, they were going to hobble the connection speeds of any popular website like YouTube unless they were paid money. So people who weren't even their customers could have their traffic throttled merely because it happened to cross their network. At the time, everyone from the ACLU to the Christian Coalition was outraged by this naked money grab. Basically, almost everyone hated the idea. Then a bunch of lobbyists came into play and split us up about what we should do in response. So you have the current false choice of "let the government regulate the internet" and "let free enterprise screw everyone over." What everyone wants is an internet where a suddenly popular site only has to pay its own ISP for bandwidth, not one where every single network operator comes to them for a handout saying, "That's a nice website you got there. Would be a shame if anything happened to it." Getting there is the hard part.