5 ms·

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

by 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.
- webXL 16y ago
  everyone from the ACLU to the Christian Coalition was outraged by this naked money grab. Basically, almost everyone hated the idea. If this isn't an example of selecion bias, I don't know what is. These are two groups everyone loves to hate, some of it justified because one promotes their Jesus-loving to the point where it doesn't make any sense and the other sometimes forgets to emphasize the A and C in their acronym as much as the L. And when were the "big telco" plans announced? Did I miss that? Doesn't seem very competetive at a time when they were adding bandwidth and not raising rates.
  - Natsu 16y ago
    > And when were the "big telco" plans announced? Did I miss that? That was what? A few years ago? It was before the term "Net Neutrality" even existed (which is what makes it such a pain--I can't for the life of me find the original article). I think I originally saw the plan on Slashdot, after which there was a letter signed by a ton of interest groups (more than just the CC & ACLU, way more) opposing the plan. That unity didn't last long--they were afraid and ran straight to the lobbyists. People saw good reason to worry that they wouldn't just give up and came up with the name "Net Neutrality" for the cause, but... then we started getting split up. At first, they were questioning, "Is this really needed" and "What the heck does 'Net Neutrality' mean?" (still are, actually). Now they've framed it in terms of whether we want to be screwed by politicians or teleco monopolies, hitting a deep political rift and preventing us from effectively working together to oppose them collecting rent from internet users they don't even provide access for.

by javert 16y ago

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.

webXL 16y ago
everyone from the ACLU to the Christian Coalition was outraged by this naked money grab. Basically, almost everyone hated the idea. If this isn't an example of selecion bias, I don't know what is. These are two groups everyone loves to hate, some of it justified because one promotes their Jesus-loving to the point where it doesn't make any sense and the other sometimes forgets to emphasize the A and C in their acronym as much as the L. And when were the "big telco" plans announced? Did I miss that? Doesn't seem very competetive at a time when they were adding bandwidth and not raising rates.
- Natsu 16y ago
  > And when were the "big telco" plans announced? Did I miss that? That was what? A few years ago? It was before the term "Net Neutrality" even existed (which is what makes it such a pain--I can't for the life of me find the original article). I think I originally saw the plan on Slashdot, after which there was a letter signed by a ton of interest groups (more than just the CC & ACLU, way more) opposing the plan. That unity didn't last long--they were afraid and ran straight to the lobbyists. People saw good reason to worry that they wouldn't just give up and came up with the name "Net Neutrality" for the cause, but... then we started getting split up. At first, they were questioning, "Is this really needed" and "What the heck does 'Net Neutrality' mean?" (still are, actually). Now they've framed it in terms of whether we want to be screwed by politicians or teleco monopolies, hitting a deep political rift and preventing us from effectively working together to oppose them collecting rent from internet users they don't even provide access for.