Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Seen Through the Telegraph
James McP writes "Ars Technica has a write-up on the unregulated telegraph of the 19th century, which gives a view into what could happen to an internet lacking any regulation mandating neutrality. The owners of the 'Victorian internet' used their control of the telegraph to prop up monopolies, manipulate elections, facilitate insider trading, and censor criticism."
Why do you think certain groups are so pushing against it? Telcos, news networks... It's no coincidence that the ones pushing to abandon NN are also the ones dealing in information.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
... it's the thin end of the wedge.
Comparing the Internet to the Telegraph?
I would have chosen a more appropriate comparison like the regrowth of injured legs on starfish, but maybe that's just me.
If you ever thought about learning Morse, you can do it at this very good site: http://www.lcwo.net/. .-.
Get your own free personal location tracker
The bottom line is that you are being screwed. It's a mistake to interpret constitution as only giving us protection against federal government. Any entity with significant power over individuals must be prevented from restricting freedom of speech or any other basic rights that we consider important. ISPs must not be allowed to discriminate against any legal but unpopular content, or against use of particular protocols like BitTorrent. Companies must not be allowed to fire people based on private Facebook posts.
A lot of people seem to allow this to slip by, but the "free market" is composed of "actors", or PEOPLE.
When you remove law enforcement from an area people revert back to their "natural" state, robbing, pillaging, raping, and assaulting. For references, see looters in natural disasters, crime reports during blackouts, etc.
In the marketplace, without regulation, people with more power will perpetrate this in people with less.
People who provide internet services will abuse any way they can to gain more money, power, and control. (the same goes for software, medical insurance, mass media, commodities, you name it)
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
"BadAnalogyGuy" is just so appropriate for you!
"There is only finite bandwidth available to everyone and one guy in his parents' basement can slow traffic for everyone else. "
"Shouldn't these users be forced to pay more for their extra usage or at least be throttled to the point they aren't causing physical damage to the entire system?"
Apart from all of that, you don't even know what is being talked about here. We are talking about REGULATING, CENSORING, and EVESDROPPING activities.
If you want to fix your Bad Analogy, you should compare this to allowing the turnpike authority to search the contents of every vehicle that enters their roadway, and also allowing them to steal and/or make substitutions for any cargo on any vehicle that enters their roadway.
There, I fixed your BAD ANALOGY for you.
Two fiber optic cables carry twice the traffic of one while consuming virtually no more resources, and they can be upgraded without disrupting existing infrastructure.
Go ahead and try to double the capacity of a highway without consuming more right-of-way or disrupting existing infrastructure.
My ISP (Comcast) consistently delivers bandwidth far in excess of what they advertise.
Your car analogy is really falling apart because the Internet is FAR less congested than our roadways.
The Victorian Internet: The Remarkable Story of the Telegraph and the Nineteenth Century's On-Line Pioneers
Uh, and just what the hell do you think the government is comprised of? Deities who are always neutral and never do anything wrong? It's made of people too, but they're privileged people who are making the laws, which makes them even more dangerous than the free market you so baselessly despise.
And are you seriously comparing an ISP's rightful regulation of its internet traffic to robbing, pillaging, raping, and assaulting? Give me a fucking break. I want sysadmins regulating their company's services--which they have every right to do--not bribed politicians who are above the law and will cater to every big financial donor's wishes. The internet isn't a right or a life necessity. It's a convenient service you pay for, like having a car or a television, and the free market keeps abuses in check because a company's livelihood depends on your dollar. A government, on the other hand, already forces you to pay it through taxes, and it makes its own special rules for itself so that it's not beholden to the law like the free market is. There's no incentive to please you as a customer. You're a citizen who will do what it says.
Could some of you stop giving the government so much power, please? We get it, you hate free markets and think government power solves absolutely everything by magic. Yep, history sure has shown how pure, fair, reliable, trustworthy, and incorruptible the government is. Uh-huh.
Your whole argument depends on the premise that government regulation is always detrimental. This is untrue on the face of it. Government has a strong role to play in regulation, rule making, arbitration, justice, social justice, and defense.
OSHA regulations protect workers from dangerous work environments.
NTSB regulations protect travelers.
Our courts provide a venue to exercise our most important right, the right to redress of grievances.
Government regulation is a good thing because it provides the rules to which our society must adhere. Without these rules, a veritable free-for-all would occur. In a market with many players, this may be beneficial, but in a market of captive customers like we have in the American ISP market this can be very detrimental.
It's not even good enough to make the rules once and let things be. As we've seen countless times the rules need to be readdressed occasionally to adapt to new situations. Our founding fathers new this, and that is why we have the Constitutional Amendment process.
Historically, the only real "laissez-faire" founding father was Thomas Jefferson and pretty much all his contemporaries considered him a fraud and brigand. Government regulation has been the cornerstone of our country for almost two and a half centuries. To claim some sort of high moral ground because you oppose it in this one specific case is pretty sad.
"It's a service you pay for that an ISP can regulate however it wants."
No they are a regulated utility like the gas or the water. The gas company is required to pump gas through its pipes, they cannot pump salad oil or dishwater without getting into trouble.
"That you're actually arguing that an ISP has power over individuals is hysterical exaggeration."
I work from home and I need the Internet to connect to work. I have only one choice of ISP. My ISP has GREAT power over me. They can force me to MOVE OUT OF MY HOME or GET ANOTHER JOB if they decide that they do not want me as a customer.
"Somehow, people made do without the internet mere decades ago."
Somehow, that means that it does not require regulation? How does that follow? That argument can be used against the regulation of ANY technology.
The Internet and the gear that runs it is a source of Power to whoever runs it.
This power WILL be taken and abused by whoever controls it.
Take off your blinders and understand that our economic system and our society exist ONLY because there are government regulations to hold it together.
You speak of corporations acting freely but you fail to realize that it is the power of government that allows them to have this freedom in the first place.
You are INSULTING and WRONG to paint everyone who disagrees with you as hating free markets.
Again you FAIL to understand that free markets DO NOT EXIST without government regulation to keep them free.
Here let me fix one of your sentences for you:
"Yep, history sure has shown how pure, fair, reliable, trustworthy, and incorruptible corporations are. Uh-huh."
It's interesting enough that according to that article, the reason for the existence of "monopolies" on the telegraph was the government itself. Because there are no monopolies unless the government can protect those monopolies. And that is exactly what this is about. Somebody decides that someone should regulate the whole Internet because otherwise it will be abused by the powerfull entities inside it. And the best solution that that "Somebody" can come up with is to hand it over to the government? That government will establish monopolies to control parts of it, somehow all the "freedoms" will go away and in the end that "Somebody" will praise the regulation because without it, it would have been much worse. Since, as the experience shows, once the government takes control of the communication channels, it is for the freedom and protection of it's users. Just look at China how well that regulation works there.
As a direct result of the lack of regulation, criminals ran things from behind the scenes with bribes and even worse tactics even later on in history. Things were much worse in the early part of the 20th century. A fellow with the nick name of "Dutch Schultz" easily created a gambling and money laundering communications empire by thoroughly corrupting the industry from within. His shtick was so slick that most did not even know to what extent it went on. You essentially had to pay "The Man" if you wanted to do any financial business over the wire period! Not just the fact that it controlled race track betting information and wagering. His mafia partners made enough money to keep the FBI off their backs...J. Edgar Hoover did not even acknowledge that they existed and a substantial part of Washington not just Cities official and Police were on the take. If there is no sensible public oversight of what goes on on the internet then you can bet it will become a haven for criminals and eventually they will run things from behind the scenes!
Actually, not only does that not apply to all countries but AFAIK not even all US states have at-will employment. Depending on where you are, getting fired over a sex video on the internet is a great reason to sue. (However, most bosses are smart enough to find some very minor infraction, blow it out of proportion, have you complain about it and then fire you for being disruptive and creating a hostile work environment. Or some such.)
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
we've learned so much in the last hundred years. We won't let them do that again. Right?
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Uh, and just what the hell do you think the government is comprised of? Deities who are always neutral and never do anything wrong? It's made of people too, but they're privileged people who are making the laws, which makes them even more dangerous than the free market you so baselessly despise.
except the government is bound by a constitution, and subject to at least SOME form of public accountability.
And are you seriously comparing an ISP's rightful regulation of its internet traffic to robbing, pillaging, raping, and assaulting?
OMG HYPERBOLE, obviously that means my point is invalid, and that people aren't really being stripped of their fundamental rights to privacy and choice, that theyre not being defrauded, that freedom of speech is not being abrogated.
Could some of you stop giving the government so much power, please? We get it, you hate free markets and think government power solves absolutely everything by magic.
No, I believe in the government stepping on corporate toes, and the the people stepping up to the ballot box to make sure the government doesn't go too far.
Yep, history sure has shown how pure, fair, reliable, trustworthy, and incorruptible the government is. Uh-huh.
Let's ask the millions of jobless about which they'd rather have: ANY government beurocrat or the CEO's of AIG; shall we?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The internet isn't a right.
equal opportunity however is a right. Since even minimum wage jobs now require online application, and you will not be allowed at all to submit applications on dead tree material to any place without nametags on the dress code.
The internet is just as fundamental to modern society as a telephone or vehicle, both of which, by the way, require a court order to be hindered.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
> The owners of the 'Victorian internet' used their control of the telegraph
> to prop up monopolies, manipulate elections, facilitate insider trading,
> and censor criticism.
And it would have been so much better had the government done that instead.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
And are you seriously comparing an ISP's rightful regulation of its internet traffic
No, I think your parent is more worried about the wrongful regulations.
I want sysadmins regulating their company's services
That's fine, as long as the company providing those services advertises truthfully what the sysadmins are actually doing to your packets.
And, of course, as long as the two internet providers in your zip code (only one of whom offers service to your house) don't collude and offer a deliberately neutered product (i.e. no bittorent, no streaming video, no voip, no [etc.]) when they could just as easily offer the better version just because the non-neutered version competes with their own video delivery service, telephony service, or other service.
the free market keeps abuses in check
Right. That works great, sometimes. Except for tragedy of the commons. And for providing law enforcement, emergency services, health insurance (so I hear), and in some other cases.
But the free market does keep some abuses in check. I think it would be wise to keep abuses in check in the highly non-free internet service market as well.
Could some of you stop giving the government so much power, please?
Could you stop giving large corporations so much power, please? Especially the ones having monopolies or duopolies...
We get it, you hate free markets and think government power solves absolutely everything by magic.
I get it. You hate government power and think free markets solves absolutely everything by magic.
Yep, history sure has shown how pure, fair, reliable, trustworthy, and incorruptible big business is. Uh-huh.
FTFY.
See? It's very easy to take what you say and turn it on its head. The bad thing isn't government power vs. corporate power, but the existence of concentrated power itself. Completely unregulated markets tend to concentrate power. Network effects help that along. It seems that we need even bigger power (in government) to break up concentrated power in the market. I don't think there is an easy solution. But blindly trusting concentrated power on one hand vs. another is a Bad Idea (TM).