Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Supporters Hammered In Elections
Pickens writes "Gigi Sohn writes in the Huffington Post that one of the results of the mid-term elections was the defeat of Representative Rick Boucher, the current Chair of the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, widely recognized as one of the most tech-savvy and intelligent members of Congress, and long an advocate for consumers on a wide variety of communications and intellectual property issues. Boucher has been the best friend of fair use on Capitol Hill writes Sohn. In 2002, 2003 and 2007, Boucher introduced legislation to allow consumers to break digital locks for lawful purposes, a fair use exception to the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and while the odds against that legislation passing were always great, Boucher understood the symbolic importance of standing up for consumers' rights to use technology lawfully. 'As important, he served as a moderating force both on the House Energy & Commerce and Judiciary Committees against those many members of Congress willing to give large media companies virtually everything on their copyright wish lists.'"
intelligence was rewarded. In fact, if anyone has too much education, they are labeled an elitist.
I tried to discuss Network Neutrality with my brother in law, but he refused to understand any of it. Instantly kicking out talking points heard by so many lobbysists working for the major telcos. So extreme in his views that he insists Net Neutrality is communism and that the free market will resolve any problem.
This is a guy who doesnt even know how to connect an external USB hard drive to his PC, his wife (IT Manager) has to do it for him. These will be the people lecturing us on what is best for us.
The faster the better. Then we can set about rebuilding..in some far, distant future
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Nobody said they were hammered "because of" their support for net neutrality. That in itself was obviously not a big issue. But this election was a lurch to the right, which does not believe limiting corporations (e.g. net neutrality as a small example) serves a greater good.
no one(well almost no one) is discussing having a govt ISP. just having the govt own the wires, like they do the roads, and letting anyone provide services(cars) for them. Anyone that wants to use the wires(roads) can as long as the services(cars) meet certain requirements(safety belts, and a license plate, and tires with tread).
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
There is a third option. I refer to it as the "single payer public option" just to get up the ire of the Tea Party folks. It's remarkably simple:
This takes the infrastructure costs out of the equation, making it possible to have substantial competition even in smaller markets. More importantly, however, it means that the government is not in control over the content because the government is not the ISP, and after ten years, the government is not even involved except in hiring somebody to run it. The key part of this is nonprofit. By taking the profit motive out of the equation, this ensures maximum areal coverage for minimum cost, yet does so in a way that minimizes the government's control over the infrastructure.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Network Neutrality was lost the day they/we allowed E911 calls over the internet. The network neutrality folks would argue that P2P traffic has the same priority over 911 VOIP packets. They don't.
I'm using Verizon as a sample because thats what I currently have (Replace Verizon with whatever ISP you have). Should Verizon discriminate packets between a streaming video NetFlix user and an FiOS on-demand video user on their network? No. If I was the NetFlix customer I would file a consumer complaint. Should Verizon discriminate between me watching on-demand and the NetFlix user watching a streaming video while the P2P Verizon user downloads Debbie Does Dallas from Russia at the same time? Yes, if it interferes with the paid for transmissions. Both I and the NetFlix user paid extra (State/local Taxes, Fees, etc.) for the priveledge of watching an un-interrupted streaming video.
In the USA, this isn't a Federal issue its a local issue. Its a grass roots effort that requires you to go down to the local zoning/franchise board in your community. Get the Franchise ISP's to sign a some sort of customer Bill of Rights. If they violate it, then they loose the franchise. The community gets to vote for a new ISP.
We, the USA internet users, need to craft this Bill of Rights for our ISP's. Not, congress, not the president, and especially not the courts. Make the internet Bill of Rights a GPL/ANSI/ISO/FSF etc. standard. How do we do this? I don't know. Maybe usenet, IRC, etc. Maybe each local ISP block needs to send two users to a internet forum to discuss, debate, and ratify. Then those users take it back to the ISP users for a vote. That's how the US constitution was formed. Its how democracy works.
Food for thought,
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
Agreed. Capitalism as it's practiced today is less about beating your competitor in the open market and more about beating them in the legislature. If you can get the government to allow you to have a monopoly (like the monopoly usually granted for local cable service) that's even better. Getting laws passed or tax incentives that are awarded to you and not your competitors is also a desirable thing.
If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
An ad hominem attack/argument is never salient in a rational discourse, regardless of a stated bent from the source. In rational discourse, ideas are the thing.
This is simply incorrect. Let me give you some examples:
- If a source portends to be unbiased and is discovered to have motives in their speech, then ad hominem is OK.
- If a source claims to be an expert on a matter, and is not, then ad hominem is OK.
IN essence, if I am relying on my reputation to make the argument, then I am exposing myself to my opponent legitimately making ad hominem attacks.
The US Legal system encourages/permits ad hominem attacks when the person or source IS salient to the issue. So I cannot simply attack a witness' reputation unless their reputation is critical to the point being made (eg an expert witness).
Wrong. Ad hominem attacks were linked with those traits, and validly so.
This bit isn't something I would argue too much over, but it was fairly obvious to me that associating the OP who doubted a source with racism/sexism/etc was clearly a rhetorical strategy meant to link the two and attack the OP (ironic, eh?). If I say to Steven Hawkings "Dammit man, you're using SCIENCE to prove your theory. Did you know the Nazi's used SCIENCE to prove that Germans are superior," everyone would immediately identify that as an inappropriate argument because I'm trying to subconsciously link Hawkings and Nazis. I don't get understand using the identical mechanism and intentionally using a guilt-by-association strategy is OK for you in this case.
It most certainly isn't a "natural monopoly".
Here in Wellington, New Zealand, I've got 2 physical broadband cables (DSL and cable) to my house (one at 20mbps, one at 15mbps), 3 separate mobile networks (2 with "broadband" 2mbps+), and plans for a third, fiber connection (100mbps+). I've even got power companies pulling fiber down the street to build a parallel FTTN network so that they can compete on the backhaul business. That's in a middle class suburb. Downtown, there's already a fiber provider in addition to all of the other groups - including the bidding for a second fiber network.
There is most certainly not a natural monopoly. We're not at the point where all bits are the same, and there is competitive advantage to be had by stringing your own wire.
Because it won't work like that.
You'll have the same 2-ish options you have now, except Google will need to have a higher revenue somehow because you won't be able to connect to Google at a reasonable speed unless Google pays your ISP as well for the honor of letting you connect to them without having their connection degraded.
It'll all but kill ad-supported web services entirely.
Personally, I'd offer the ISPs the option to be a common carrier -- if you're a common carrier by definition you can't tinker with the connection based upon it's contents, source, or destination but you also aren't responsible for those contents. If you aren't, then you, as the ISP, are now legally liable for everything your customers do on your connection -- in altering the connection in a content/source/destination sensitive way you are claiming responsibility for that content.
That'd be the fastest way to ensure net neutrality while still giving the ISPs the option to ignore the concept entirely.