7 ms·

politics before ethics. sigh, it was always thus, it shall always be.

by gretful 13y ago

macspoofing 13y ago
I understand your point, but I just don't see the ethical implications. Net neutrality, may be important, but it is a legal directive. Not supporting, or actively working to abolish net neutrality, isn't unethical.
- zem 13y ago
  without net neutrality we get an internet where the rich get preferential treatment, and where providers can pick and choose between people using their services. how is working towards that not unethical?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The rich get the treatment they can pay for, and most providers give better service to those who can afford to pay more. I can understand the objection to that at a meta level, but I don't see the need to single out the internet for special consideration.
  - danielweber 13y ago
    > rich get preferential treatment It's comments like these that make me not like net neutrality. There is no way you are going to stop people who spend more money from being able to enjoy better Internet connections. On the other hand, ISPs ought to be stopped, in general, from discriminating against traffic based on a) their desire to sell their own service that competes with it, or b) who you are connecting to.
    - smtddr 13y ago
      I'm not sure I see a difference between your position and the position of the person you're replying. What you're saying is basically how I translated zem's comment in my mind. When he said "rich", I assumed the rich people who own the ISPs(or are friends of the owners) altering QoS for different sites/services. Or maybe I'm projecting my own thoughts onto zem's comment.
      - macspoofing 13y ago
        >When he said "rich", I assumed the rich people who own the ISPs Your interpretation is ... strange. The big telecoms are publicly owned. So those "rich people who own the ISPs" are shareholders? I'm pretty sure zem referred to "rich" and "poor" consumers of internet services. Not telecoms, not corporations.
        zem 13y ago
        actually, i was referring to producers - consumers are mostly affected by net neutrality due to what they do and do not get access to (as gated by the isps). however, with net neutrality thrown out of the door netflix can afford to pay for "up bandwidth", but e.g. a small competitor would be pushed out of the market.
    - atmosx 13y ago
      > It's comments like these that make me not like net neutrality. There is no way you are going to stop people who spend more money from being able to enjoy better Internet connections. Agreed, so there's no need to give them more ways to enhance their advantage. They are too far ahead already. Because that's what is all about...
    - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
      Why should ISP 's be stopped from discriminating? A company that blocked Google would find its competitor's saturation bombing ads for "Google compatible" Internet service. Followed by the tort lawyers saturation bombing ads for class action lawsuits alleging breach of contract and tortious interference in contracts.
      - zem 13y ago
        right, but a company who blocked a startup competing with google would face next to no backlash, while (if they were big enough) severely disadvantaging said startup. heck, it doesn't take blocking - what if google loaded in 0.05 seconds and duckduckgo loaded in 1 second? i'm pretty sure that would push most of the users google's way.
        jackgavigan 13y ago
        This, right here, is the real danger - that relinquishing net neutrality will end up stifling competition and, thus, innovation. You can't prioritise some packets without disadvantaging others. Unless the rules were crafted very, very carefully (and, let's face it, do we really think that would happen), I could easily envisage major connectivity providers auctioning off a handful of "prime video streamer" slots to companies like YouTube and Netflix, leaving other companies' services unusable. And that's just what I can imagine - the unintended consequences that I can't imagine are potentially far, far worse. We got from 14.4k dial-up to multi-megabit always-on broadband (both fixed-line AND mobile) without compromising on net neutrality. The potential disadvantages far outweigh the claimed advantages.
      - CamperBob2 13y ago
        What competitor?
  - macspoofing 13y ago
    >without net neutrality we get an internet where the rich get preferential treatment Net neutrality does nothing for rich or poor. The rich already benefit from better connectivity and internet access. Net neutrality doesn't automatically make internet cheaper either, in fact, it may make it more expensive because the telecoms cannot complement their internet fees with money collected from Youtube and Netflix for priority access. So at least theoretically, net neutrality could imply higher internet fees for the end-user. I don't know which way you lean ideologically, but your line of reasoning is similar to arguing that cable packages are unethical, because the rich have better access and selection than the poor. You can argue it, but I'd disagree. The USA, along with most of the world, has a mixed economy which has capitalism as its foundation, complemented by a strong government which provides for common infrastructure, safety net, and regulation. There's a very good reason for having such a system, but it does mean that there will exist poor and rich (and everything in-between). Saying something is unethical just because there would be a difference between what the rich and the poor would have available to them is irrational. It most certainly doesn't apply to Net Neutrality. // For the record, I do support Net Neutrality, but I wouldn't characterize it as a moral or ethical issue. I see it as just good policy because it levels the playing field between big and small players, which makes everyone better off (rich and poor). Microsoft, Netflix, Google, Apple, Amazon are going to be fine in a non-net-neutral world, startups and mid-sized companies will be at a disadvantage.
    - virmundi 13y ago
      I would say that there is an unethical conflict of interest now with the at least Comcast. Comcast offers home security monitoring now. They could, they haven't said they would, start to require their home security competition to pay for access to the pipe to the home. It's the same thing with Comcast's on-demand vs Netflix. Comcast is going to favor its own offering to the detriment of the competitor. They should not be allowed to do this. They should be given two options: 1) open network and they can keep all their extras like security or 2) close network but no extras.
      - Kliment 13y ago
        Option 2 is unworkable because you just end up with company A providing access with no extras but preferential service for company B as a "valued partner" and excluding all of company B's competitors.
- hgsigala 13y ago
  Corporations get first amendment rights at the cost of the people's.
- atmosx 13y ago
  > I understand your point, but I just don't see the ethical implications. Net neutrality, may be important, but it is a legal directive. Not supporting, or actively working to abolish net neutrality, isn't unethical. So, according to you allowing a light weight to fight a heavy weight is ethical? In my view, it is not. Big corporations enjoy already great advantages that come from their size. If we let this go, we'll turn an oligopoly into a monopoly. So imagine now if some ISP will have to BUY access to Netflix, Google, etc. So say 5 years from now, 1 carrier gives you Bing, Yahoo and Twitter while the other one gives you only Google. If you take the former you'll have to buy a proxy into Google because Google didn't pay the carrier and the carrier doesn't want free rides on his network. This could deteriorate faster then we might dare to think.
  - macspoofing 13y ago
    >So, according to you allowing a light weight to fight a heavy weight is ethical? It's neither ethical nor unethical, that's all I'm saying. It's like saying "tax-cuts are unethical because of one thing or another". You can try to argue that, sure, but I think it'd be irrational. By the way, I do support Net Neutrality because it's a good policy that makes everyone better off.
    - ganeumann 13y ago
      >By the way, I do support Net Neutrality because it's a good policy that makes everyone better off. In some philosophical traditions making everyone better off is the actual definition of ethical.
      - macspoofing 13y ago
        >In some philosophical traditions making everyone better off is the actual definition of ethical. Everyone except telecoms (and possibly the big guys who could afford the telecom toll).
        wwweston 13y ago
        Arguably the telecoms too. They benefit from an increased requirement for their services, but that only happens as new and compelling services are created and catch on. Under what conditions are these services most likely to come about? Well, we've been able to compare networks where content and carrier have ties, and neutral networks. Think AOL versus the web. We have some idea which one does better. Introducing extra data fees isn't necessarily the walled garden, I suppose, but depending on the structure, it walks us back some degree on the spectrum between the web and AOL.

politics before ethics. sigh, it was always thus, it shall always be.

by gretful 13y ago

politics before ethics. sigh, it was always thus, it shall always be.

I understand your point, but I just don't see the ethical implications. Net neutrality, may be important, but it is a legal directive. Not supporting, or actively working to abolish net neutrality, isn't unethical.

zem 13y ago
without net neutrality we get an internet where the rich get preferential treatment, and where providers can pick and choose between people using their services. how is working towards that not unethical?
- rayiner 13y ago
  The rich get the treatment they can pay for, and most providers give better service to those who can afford to pay more. I can understand the objection to that at a meta level, but I don't see the need to single out the internet for special consideration.
- danielweber 13y ago
  > rich get preferential treatment It's comments like these that make me not like net neutrality. There is no way you are going to stop people who spend more money from being able to enjoy better Internet connections. On the other hand, ISPs ought to be stopped, in general, from discriminating against traffic based on a) their desire to sell their own service that competes with it, or b) who you are connecting to.
  - smtddr 13y ago
    I'm not sure I see a difference between your position and the position of the person you're replying. What you're saying is basically how I translated zem's comment in my mind. When he said "rich", I assumed the rich people who own the ISPs(or are friends of the owners) altering QoS for different sites/services. Or maybe I'm projecting my own thoughts onto zem's comment.
    - macspoofing 13y ago
      >When he said "rich", I assumed the rich people who own the ISPs Your interpretation is ... strange. The big telecoms are publicly owned. So those "rich people who own the ISPs" are shareholders? I'm pretty sure zem referred to "rich" and "poor" consumers of internet services. Not telecoms, not corporations.
      - zem 13y ago
        actually, i was referring to producers - consumers are mostly affected by net neutrality due to what they do and do not get access to (as gated by the isps). however, with net neutrality thrown out of the door netflix can afford to pay for "up bandwidth", but e.g. a small competitor would be pushed out of the market.
  - atmosx 13y ago
    > It's comments like these that make me not like net neutrality. There is no way you are going to stop people who spend more money from being able to enjoy better Internet connections. Agreed, so there's no need to give them more ways to enhance their advantage. They are too far ahead already. Because that's what is all about...
  - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
    Why should ISP 's be stopped from discriminating? A company that blocked Google would find its competitor's saturation bombing ads for "Google compatible" Internet service. Followed by the tort lawyers saturation bombing ads for class action lawsuits alleging breach of contract and tortious interference in contracts.
    - zem 13y ago
      right, but a company who blocked a startup competing with google would face next to no backlash, while (if they were big enough) severely disadvantaging said startup. heck, it doesn't take blocking - what if google loaded in 0.05 seconds and duckduckgo loaded in 1 second? i'm pretty sure that would push most of the users google's way.
      - jackgavigan 13y ago
        This, right here, is the real danger - that relinquishing net neutrality will end up stifling competition and, thus, innovation. You can't prioritise some packets without disadvantaging others. Unless the rules were crafted very, very carefully (and, let's face it, do we really think that would happen), I could easily envisage major connectivity providers auctioning off a handful of "prime video streamer" slots to companies like YouTube and Netflix, leaving other companies' services unusable. And that's just what I can imagine - the unintended consequences that I can't imagine are potentially far, far worse. We got from 14.4k dial-up to multi-megabit always-on broadband (both fixed-line AND mobile) without compromising on net neutrality. The potential disadvantages far outweigh the claimed advantages.
    - CamperBob2 13y ago
      What competitor?
- macspoofing 13y ago
  >without net neutrality we get an internet where the rich get preferential treatment Net neutrality does nothing for rich or poor. The rich already benefit from better connectivity and internet access. Net neutrality doesn't automatically make internet cheaper either, in fact, it may make it more expensive because the telecoms cannot complement their internet fees with money collected from Youtube and Netflix for priority access. So at least theoretically, net neutrality could imply higher internet fees for the end-user. I don't know which way you lean ideologically, but your line of reasoning is similar to arguing that cable packages are unethical, because the rich have better access and selection than the poor. You can argue it, but I'd disagree. The USA, along with most of the world, has a mixed economy which has capitalism as its foundation, complemented by a strong government which provides for common infrastructure, safety net, and regulation. There's a very good reason for having such a system, but it does mean that there will exist poor and rich (and everything in-between). Saying something is unethical just because there would be a difference between what the rich and the poor would have available to them is irrational. It most certainly doesn't apply to Net Neutrality. // For the record, I do support Net Neutrality, but I wouldn't characterize it as a moral or ethical issue. I see it as just good policy because it levels the playing field between big and small players, which makes everyone better off (rich and poor). Microsoft, Netflix, Google, Apple, Amazon are going to be fine in a non-net-neutral world, startups and mid-sized companies will be at a disadvantage.
  - virmundi 13y ago
    I would say that there is an unethical conflict of interest now with the at least Comcast. Comcast offers home security monitoring now. They could, they haven't said they would, start to require their home security competition to pay for access to the pipe to the home. It's the same thing with Comcast's on-demand vs Netflix. Comcast is going to favor its own offering to the detriment of the competitor. They should not be allowed to do this. They should be given two options: 1) open network and they can keep all their extras like security or 2) close network but no extras.
    - Kliment 13y ago
      Option 2 is unworkable because you just end up with company A providing access with no extras but preferential service for company B as a "valued partner" and excluding all of company B's competitors.
hgsigala 13y ago
Corporations get first amendment rights at the cost of the people's.
atmosx 13y ago
> I understand your point, but I just don't see the ethical implications. Net neutrality, may be important, but it is a legal directive. Not supporting, or actively working to abolish net neutrality, isn't unethical. So, according to you allowing a light weight to fight a heavy weight is ethical? In my view, it is not. Big corporations enjoy already great advantages that come from their size. If we let this go, we'll turn an oligopoly into a monopoly. So imagine now if some ISP will have to BUY access to Netflix, Google, etc. So say 5 years from now, 1 carrier gives you Bing, Yahoo and Twitter while the other one gives you only Google. If you take the former you'll have to buy a proxy into Google because Google didn't pay the carrier and the carrier doesn't want free rides on his network. This could deteriorate faster then we might dare to think.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  >So, according to you allowing a light weight to fight a heavy weight is ethical? It's neither ethical nor unethical, that's all I'm saying. It's like saying "tax-cuts are unethical because of one thing or another". You can try to argue that, sure, but I think it'd be irrational. By the way, I do support Net Neutrality because it's a good policy that makes everyone better off.
  - ganeumann 13y ago
    >By the way, I do support Net Neutrality because it's a good policy that makes everyone better off. In some philosophical traditions making everyone better off is the actual definition of ethical.
    - macspoofing 13y ago
      >In some philosophical traditions making everyone better off is the actual definition of ethical. Everyone except telecoms (and possibly the big guys who could afford the telecom toll).
      - wwweston 13y ago
        Arguably the telecoms too. They benefit from an increased requirement for their services, but that only happens as new and compelling services are created and catch on. Under what conditions are these services most likely to come about? Well, we've been able to compare networks where content and carrier have ties, and neutral networks. Think AOL versus the web. We have some idea which one does better. Introducing extra data fees isn't necessarily the walled garden, I suppose, but depending on the structure, it walks us back some degree on the spectrum between the web and AOL.