3 ms·

This makes no sense, Ron usually takes the freedom / libertarian angle on things. I'm sure there's some nefarious reason for their stand (campaign dollars?). si

by prpatel 14y ago

This makes no sense, Ron usually takes the freedom / libertarian angle on things. I'm sure there's some nefarious reason for their stand (campaign dollars?). sigh wish there was a way to 'hack' politics...

kiba 14y ago
A lot of people in libertarianism will actually oppose copyright and patents on property right ground. However It would seems that Ron Paul oppose public domain on property right ground. Even so, I think the libertarians are coming to the consensus that IP are something to be opposed. Ron Paul is just a little bit behind on the time.
- dantheman 14y ago
  I wasn't sure what they meant by property rights, I assumed they were referring to physical infrastructure that runs the internet. Mandating sharing is a violation of property rights. I didn't see this as addressing intellectual property at all.
  - kiba 14y ago
    When they say "public domain", I assume IP rights are involved. Expansion of the public domain is the kind of things that any anti-IP libertarians will applause.
    - maratd 14y ago
      > When they say "public domain", I assume IP rights are involved. Why?
kmanlives 14y ago
His libertarian approach on this issue is that the government should be "hands off" and not make any legislation to control technology and the internet, including legislated net neutrality rules. He makes a good point in saying that legislation can't keep up with the speed of technology, but I'm not sure where I come down on his overall ideas.
dantheman 14y ago
What doesn't make sense? The only way to guarantee the free and open nature of the internet is to keep the government out of it. Once the government builds an apparatus to enforce net neutrality it's role will gradually expand to start controlling the internet. An argument can be made that government funding of teclos should come with certain restrictions - those restrictions must be present when the money is doled out. Government creating problems in order to solve them, is an easy way to further their involvement. Additionally, I believe the Pauls would be against the funding.
- lclarkmichalek 14y ago
  I think you should probably remove the absolutes from your comment. It may come to pass that net neutrality legislation morphs into something larger, but suggesting that it is a given is just an attempt to dismiss the entire argument on that topic. Saying that keeping governments out is the only way to safeguard the open internet is stupid; many other interests are at play, and many commercial organisations would definitely like to see the current status modified in their favor, which may or may not be good for net neutrality, and related issues.
- pvidler 14y ago
  If the government gives up any and all control over the internet, then they simply cede it to the ISPs and carriers; they win by default simply because our access must go through them. I don't want to be paying extra to access certain popular services, or to be rate-limited while accessing a service that my own ISP owns an alternative to. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. That said, I can benefit in some areas that would no longer exist with government-enforced net neutrality. For example, here in the UK BT offers an unlimited broadband deal with 'exclusions' -- without them I suspect there would have to be bandwidth caps: "We want to give everyone the best possible speeds at all times, so we only manage speeds on P2P (peer-to-peer) file sharing networks at peak times. All other broadband use isn't affected – and there's no limit to how much you can download." -- from the products and services page on BT.com.
ef4 14y ago
There is a principled argument against net neutrality as it's usually proposed, whether or not you happen to agree. Given congress's track record, I think there are plenty of rational reasons to be wary of asking them to start telling ISPs how to run their networks. Why should we think such regulations wouldn't simply favor incumbents who are big enough to play the political game, like most of what congress passes? If the problem with the telcos is that they're wielding publicly-granted monopoly powers, then let's address that directly. For an example alternative, I like the model where neighborhoods or municipalities own their own last mile infrastructure, giving them plenty of leverage to buy transit at competitive prices. This solution is practically illegal thanks to the legal barriers supporting the existing monopolies. Streamline the process for startups to get approval to compete and I don't doubt we'd see many innovative new models.
waterlesscloud 14y ago
The manifesto has some serious problems, but the Boingboing piece is a long, long way from an unbiased interpretation of it. Saying that it opposes the public domain and argues for government monopoly on control of information is just twisted and simply not true. Read it yourself here. http://www.scribd.com/doc/99193487/The-Technology-Revolution-Final-Rev-629 http://www.scribd.com/doc/99193487/The-Technology-Revolution...
mikeash 14y ago
The idea is that network operators should be free to operate their networks as they see fit, including blocking traffic, throttling, charging for preferred access, etc. I happen to disagree, because internet operators tend to operate in a quasi-monopoly state in the US, but the simple freedom/libertarian angle here is against net neutrality.
temphn 14y ago
Google is a great company in many ways, but "net neutrality" is a political catchphrase. If Google changes your ranking, you lose traffic and visitors just as surely as if Comcast throttles your bandwidth and people bail on your site for slowness. But no one is talking about "search neutrality" and regulating Google's rankings. And Google owns its own dedicated fiber connections, which obviously prioritize its own traffic. Freeing up the telecommunications market is the solution here. With new protocols and new carriers, you could implement things like SPDY in hardware if carriers were free to discriminate between packet A and packet B.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
tzs 14y ago
He is taking the libertarian angle: let the ISPs do whatever they want with THEIR PROPERTY (their network), and if consumers don't like it when the ISPs start imposing restrictions then competing ISPs will arise and the free market will work everything out and we'll all live happily ever after. Remember, there's no such thing as a natural monopoly in Paul's world, individuals are on equal footing in bargaining power against giant companies, there is no information asymmetry, any harm can be set right by a monetary settlement, and Nash equilibria always give the best outcome for all parties, and so free markets alway are best and don't need any regulation to make them actually work.

by prpatel 14y ago

kiba 14y ago

A lot of people in libertarianism will actually oppose copyright and patents on property right ground. However It would seems that Ron Paul oppose public domain on property right ground. Even so, I think the libertarians are coming to the consensus that IP are something to be opposed. Ron Paul is just a little bit behind on the time.

dantheman 14y ago
I wasn't sure what they meant by property rights, I assumed they were referring to physical infrastructure that runs the internet. Mandating sharing is a violation of property rights. I didn't see this as addressing intellectual property at all.
- kiba 14y ago
  When they say "public domain", I assume IP rights are involved. Expansion of the public domain is the kind of things that any anti-IP libertarians will applause.
  - maratd 14y ago
    > When they say "public domain", I assume IP rights are involved. Why?

kmanlives 14y ago

His libertarian approach on this issue is that the government should be "hands off" and not make any legislation to control technology and the internet, including legislated net neutrality rules. He makes a good point in saying that legislation can't keep up with the speed of technology, but I'm not sure where I come down on his overall ideas.

dantheman 14y ago

What doesn't make sense? The only way to guarantee the free and open nature of the internet is to keep the government out of it. Once the government builds an apparatus to enforce net neutrality it's role will gradually expand to start controlling the internet. An argument can be made that government funding of teclos should come with certain restrictions - those restrictions must be present when the money is doled out. Government creating problems in order to solve them, is an easy way to further their involvement. Additionally, I believe the Pauls would be against the funding.

lclarkmichalek 14y ago
I think you should probably remove the absolutes from your comment. It may come to pass that net neutrality legislation morphs into something larger, but suggesting that it is a given is just an attempt to dismiss the entire argument on that topic. Saying that keeping governments out is the only way to safeguard the open internet is stupid; many other interests are at play, and many commercial organisations would definitely like to see the current status modified in their favor, which may or may not be good for net neutrality, and related issues.
pvidler 14y ago
If the government gives up any and all control over the internet, then they simply cede it to the ISPs and carriers; they win by default simply because our access must go through them. I don't want to be paying extra to access certain popular services, or to be rate-limited while accessing a service that my own ISP owns an alternative to. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. That said, I can benefit in some areas that would no longer exist with government-enforced net neutrality. For example, here in the UK BT offers an unlimited broadband deal with 'exclusions' -- without them I suspect there would have to be bandwidth caps: "We want to give everyone the best possible speeds at all times, so we only manage speeds on P2P (peer-to-peer) file sharing networks at peak times. All other broadband use isn't affected – and there's no limit to how much you can download." -- from the products and services page on BT.com.

ef4 14y ago

There is a principled argument against net neutrality as it's usually proposed, whether or not you happen to agree. Given congress's track record, I think there are plenty of rational reasons to be wary of asking them to start telling ISPs how to run their networks. Why should we think such regulations wouldn't simply favor incumbents who are big enough to play the political game, like most of what congress passes? If the problem with the telcos is that they're wielding publicly-granted monopoly powers, then let's address that directly. For an example alternative, I like the model where neighborhoods or municipalities own their own last mile infrastructure, giving them plenty of leverage to buy transit at competitive prices. This solution is practically illegal thanks to the legal barriers supporting the existing monopolies. Streamline the process for startups to get approval to compete and I don't doubt we'd see many innovative new models.

waterlesscloud 14y ago

The manifesto has some serious problems, but the Boingboing piece is a long, long way from an unbiased interpretation of it. Saying that it opposes the public domain and argues for government monopoly on control of information is just twisted and simply not true. Read it yourself here. http://www.scribd.com/doc/99193487/The-Technology-Revolution-Final-Rev-629 http://www.scribd.com/doc/99193487/The-Technology-Revolution...

mikeash 14y ago

The idea is that network operators should be free to operate their networks as they see fit, including blocking traffic, throttling, charging for preferred access, etc. I happen to disagree, because internet operators tend to operate in a quasi-monopoly state in the US, but the simple freedom/libertarian angle here is against net neutrality.

temphn 14y ago

Google is a great company in many ways, but "net neutrality" is a political catchphrase. If Google changes your ranking, you lose traffic and visitors just as surely as if Comcast throttles your bandwidth and people bail on your site for slowness. But no one is talking about "search neutrality" and regulating Google's rankings. And Google owns its own dedicated fiber connections, which obviously prioritize its own traffic. Freeing up the telecommunications market is the solution here. With new protocols and new carriers, you could implement things like SPDY in hardware if carriers were free to discriminate between packet A and packet B.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

tzs 14y ago

He is taking the libertarian angle: let the ISPs do whatever they want with THEIR PROPERTY (their network), and if consumers don't like it when the ISPs start imposing restrictions then competing ISPs will arise and the free market will work everything out and we'll all live happily ever after. Remember, there's no such thing as a natural monopoly in Paul's world, individuals are on equal footing in bargaining power against giant companies, there is no information asymmetry, any harm can be set right by a monetary settlement, and Nash equilibria always give the best outcome for all parties, and so free markets alway are best and don't need any regulation to make them actually work.