5 ms·

Businesses will push for anything that can make them profit. For these companies Net Neutrality happen to fall into their profit domain so they push for it. But

Businesses will push for anything that can make them profit. For these companies Net Neutrality happen to fall into their profit domain so they push for it. But fundamental rights and values should not be up for anyone to debate or lobby. Net Neutrality should be part of the constitution.

tim333 12y ago
>Businesses will push for anything that can make them profit That's kind of a simplification. The pushing is controlled by the CEO and similar people at the companies and they can in practice push for pretty much what they like using the companies money. While they are kind of supposed to maximise shareholders interests they don't always do so in practice (see excessive company jets, vanity takeovers). I doubt Ford and BoA are pushing neutrality because they think it will increase their profits, they are probably just pushing it because the boss likes the idea.
rayiner 12y ago
How is telling other people what they can do with their property a fundamental right?
- lukifer 12y ago
  How is property a fundamental right? (Honest question.)
  - tptacek 12y ago
    So what you're saying is Net Neutrality mostly makes sense if you don't believe in property?
    - lukifer 12y ago
      Not exactly; just considering the trade-off of sacred cow vs. tasty burger. I'm not opposed to property or possessions, but I do think the burden of proof is on the believer rather than the skeptic, and our society seems to put a higher sanctity on property than on community or commons, as though it were an immutable axiom of the universe. (I'd also really like to hear a First Principle on the subject that doesn't contain "Because USSR".)
      - tptacek 12y ago
        Is there a principled argument for net neutrality that would persuade someone with a conventional perspective on property?
gumby 12y ago
> Net Neutrality should be part of the constitution. I think comcast and verizon are villainous scum that should be crushed like bugs, and still I am uncomfortable with legislating for net neutrality at this point, and especially uncomfortable with the idea of putting it in the constitution (even presuming that that's a bit of hyperbole on your part). My problem is that NN is a "I know it when I see it" issue. But do I? When I first saw bitterness I thought it was a bad actor at the TCP/IP level (it isn't!). Streaming live events over the network? Madness -- my first impression was that we have several other broadcast media for that already! (now I realize: "so what?"). My understanding evolves over time. Consider: differentiated carriage is clearly of interest to me -- I'd be happy to pay (as long as it's me making the decision, not my carrier) for differentiated QoS to make sure my call or game traffic were isochronous, that that big file I want now came quickly, but that my background app & OS updates, or disk pickup transmissions, were deprioritized, or even especially scheduled for periods of low contention. I'm delighted if my ISP has a cache so that common pages many people in my topological area may preload pages I want to see two, improving my access. Oh and I do with that that DDOS attack aimed at you doesn't catch me in the crossfire. Finally, we know that when legislation is made, especially by people who lack the domain knowledge, all sorts of corner cases get screwed up both maliciously or though ignorance. What's network management vs rentier opportunism vs disadvantaging the poor vs a mistake can be twisted by someone with a buck to make, and the old carriers are past masters at such games. And they will surely swap the right to stop spam and layer 3 attacks for the right to monitor and censor. If you do want a constitutional amendment, make it a general one about right of carriage and passage. I.e. it should apply equally to trucks driving down the road (which still have to meet some technical constraints for safety) to sending parcels, transmitting bits and the like. So that it can still be applicable when we consider packet switching as obsolete as the carrier pigeon.
- splitrocket 12y ago
  Thing about QOS is that if I buy a level of service from my ISP and you buy an equivalent or greater level of service from your ISP, you and I should be able to communicate at that level of service. The which bits we decide to send to each other should be completely up to us. QOS should happen at the edges of the network, certainly not in the middle because the middle has no clue what bits count to me. Common Carrier law is exactly what Title II is, and what currently applies to trucks driving down the roads (can't buy a faster speed limit), electricity, shipping, oil pipelines, landline telephony, postage, etc.

tim333 12y ago

>Businesses will push for anything that can make them profit That's kind of a simplification. The pushing is controlled by the CEO and similar people at the companies and they can in practice push for pretty much what they like using the companies money. While they are kind of supposed to maximise shareholders interests they don't always do so in practice (see excessive company jets, vanity takeovers). I doubt Ford and BoA are pushing neutrality because they think it will increase their profits, they are probably just pushing it because the boss likes the idea.

rayiner 12y ago

How is telling other people what they can do with their property a fundamental right?

lukifer 12y ago
How is property a fundamental right? (Honest question.)
- tptacek 12y ago
  So what you're saying is Net Neutrality mostly makes sense if you don't believe in property?
  - lukifer 12y ago
    Not exactly; just considering the trade-off of sacred cow vs. tasty burger. I'm not opposed to property or possessions, but I do think the burden of proof is on the believer rather than the skeptic, and our society seems to put a higher sanctity on property than on community or commons, as though it were an immutable axiom of the universe. (I'd also really like to hear a First Principle on the subject that doesn't contain "Because USSR".)
    - tptacek 12y ago
      Is there a principled argument for net neutrality that would persuade someone with a conventional perspective on property?

gumby 12y ago

> Net Neutrality should be part of the constitution. I think comcast and verizon are villainous scum that should be crushed like bugs, and still I am uncomfortable with legislating for net neutrality at this point, and especially uncomfortable with the idea of putting it in the constitution (even presuming that that's a bit of hyperbole on your part). My problem is that NN is a "I know it when I see it" issue. But do I? When I first saw bitterness I thought it was a bad actor at the TCP/IP level (it isn't!). Streaming live events over the network? Madness -- my first impression was that we have several other broadcast media for that already! (now I realize: "so what?"). My understanding evolves over time. Consider: differentiated carriage is clearly of interest to me -- I'd be happy to pay (as long as it's me making the decision, not my carrier) for differentiated QoS to make sure my call or game traffic were isochronous, that that big file I want now came quickly, but that my background app & OS updates, or disk pickup transmissions, were deprioritized, or even especially scheduled for periods of low contention. I'm delighted if my ISP has a cache so that common pages many people in my topological area may preload pages I want to see two, improving my access. Oh and I do with that that DDOS attack aimed at you doesn't catch me in the crossfire. Finally, we know that when legislation is made, especially by people who lack the domain knowledge, all sorts of corner cases get screwed up both maliciously or though ignorance. What's network management vs rentier opportunism vs disadvantaging the poor vs a mistake can be twisted by someone with a buck to make, and the old carriers are past masters at such games. And they will surely swap the right to stop spam and layer 3 attacks for the right to monitor and censor. If you do want a constitutional amendment, make it a general one about right of carriage and passage. I.e. it should apply equally to trucks driving down the road (which still have to meet some technical constraints for safety) to sending parcels, transmitting bits and the like. So that it can still be applicable when we consider packet switching as obsolete as the carrier pigeon.

splitrocket 12y ago
Thing about QOS is that if I buy a level of service from my ISP and you buy an equivalent or greater level of service from your ISP, you and I should be able to communicate at that level of service. The which bits we decide to send to each other should be completely up to us. QOS should happen at the edges of the network, certainly not in the middle because the middle has no clue what bits count to me. Common Carrier law is exactly what Title II is, and what currently applies to trucks driving down the roads (can't buy a faster speed limit), electricity, shipping, oil pipelines, landline telephony, postage, etc.