I thought Virgin was talking about tiered bandwidth. X dollars for slower bandwidth, XX dollars for medium, XXX for fast/capable of streaming HD pr0n? If not forgive me, but I think its fair to assess such tiered network schemes as a violation of neutrality. I get faster internet because I pay more. My service provider isn't neutral at all. They favor me.
In that respect, I think yeah, things are already not neutral. So if you want to throw a fit because your service provider gives you more for paying more, I suppose that's your right. As for me, I really appreciated when my service provider gave me the option of category 'XXX'. It costs more than I used to pay, but is totally worth it....Isn't that why I switched from dial-up?
Most of my classes right now are in Jave. I do most of my Co-op in C. OS-stuff, and lots of pointers. Most of my co-workers are computer engineers, and I'm a Compsci major instead. The algorithms interest me most, and are most interesting in my studies. That's where Java's been nice to me; abstracting levels so I can really understand the Algorithm quickly. However, it doesn't help much with software engineering. I've never needed to implement a new algorithm.
So I'd have to agree that Java doesn't you be a better software engineer. But I'd disagree that it makes you a worse Computer Scientist.
And in my department, C.S. ins't a professional degree; its not part of a tech school, not engineering. It carries similar weights to a physics degree as opposed to a M.E. degree. Algorithms are the focus. Implementations are an exercise. The program isn't geared towards making good programmers. Its geared towards making good algorithm developers.
I agree, and had similar thoughts upon reading the line about sharing, which is different than copying. It is interesting how the post persuades the intent to share was strictly with his wife. I'm not sure how joint property really works in such cases, but if one considers that the two share the physical property of the cd, then wouldn't they be able to share the legally backed up versions as well? Or when they both listen to the cd, does one voilate copyright? Or is it only if they BOTH listen at the same time (which would seem like the only true violation the digital form may gain over the physical one, as far as legal precedent is concerned).
I guess it goes back to that same old, same old, "does enabling copyright infringement constitute the act itself?" If I remember correctly, the recent answer is no. (Something about an old judgment formerly used in favor of the responsibility of large cable companies. Point is I suppose if they ever both listened to the music at the same time, then that's probably infringement, and everything else shouldn't be. But that's just my intuition
And when you accept that much, then you have to actually prove such an act ever occurred;-P
I ran across this open source group via the fancy Jeff Han stuff. www.nuigroup.com. They're taking images from a webcam, and doing fancy blob detection for a multi-input touch interface kind of thing. They work in windows mostly, with a c++ lib, porting into other windows-y programming environments. Open sound control (a lightweight protocol) VVVV (I'm still not sure what this is), DirectX layers, and more.
It would work great to try and integrate as a lower level windows driver. Right now only applications work with a library. But perhaps a driver, working with a webcam driver, presenting itself as an input device? Eh? Well its certainly got potential to consider.
Ironically I got interested in the project from the perspective as a linux project. It would work very well on an embedded linux system, passing information on the pci or usb bus to any which os. But embedded programming is a whole different ballpark from the rest of the programming world.
I recently began a coop at an embeded systems company, doing, whatelse, linux development for their platforms. I've read everything I could get my hands on about linux on embedded systems. For they most part, they're all redundant. Orielly's Understanding the Linux Kernel and Linux Device Drivers have been the two most useful books.
That said, neither is the "linux is the same embedded or not" argument all that good. I sure wish it was. Most information out there is about the x86 system, which embedded applications tend to avoid. On the other hand, books that target themselves towards the embedded market tend to mix and match different architectures. What I needed was comprehensive coverage of different processes specific to all the different platforms, because this is where kernel documentation or other resources tend to be rather skim.
Long story short: there was no quick substitute for paging through assembly code, and the very beginings of c code, to learn what I needed to know. For example, bootstrapping elfs verses non bootstrapping elfs, figuring out which code is which, the addresses that code executes at, etc. is all different for different platforms. In the least, it was only well explained for x86, and there was no explinations for the different standards and structures used in the boot process. (Mips, for example, uses an argv/c boot standard, ppc looks for the begining and end of a string address).
This is probably minor and old hat so far in the conversation. Many valid points above. My biggest caveot is calling the insertion of owner metadata into the file DRM. Strictly speaking, it isn't. There are many watermarking startups around that could explain why. These companies, which focus on embedding metadata within files (either as actual or digital), poise themselves as the solution to DRM. And I would say that unencrypted, unembedded (in the hard to get to sense), un-'watermarked' user metadata in apple files is simply a dummed down, unglorified verision of this very technology (which again differentiates itself from DRM).
But yeah, I mean, I suppose you could call this kind of thing "digital rights management" as long as you concede that the very laws and executive system behind it which deter a body from breaking into your house via a threat of incarceration "analog rights management". I'm sure the guys in jail could complain that nobody told them you can get their finger prints off the door handle, and that fingerprints were only created, with little mention by whoever created fingerprints, to manage their right to or to not steal.
I think there are two separate issues confounding this discussion.
The first is that at a philosophical capitalistic level, a tiered (but not sensored) network may or may not be advantageous.
The second is that at a real capitalistic level, the telecos are making arguments for all the wrong reasons, following the general sense of a greedy capitalistic oligopoly double dipping into utilities at every chance possible.
I find the latter incites an emotional response to the former, affecting the ability to speak logically about the former. I feel like the debate is better addressed when one is conscious of these two separate sub-debates, so that one can address the source of one's position.
For example, while I don't thing it's a good idea to demand neutral networks, following from my studies on similar liberal 'neutral controls' over television, I also don't think that the telecos should be double dipping simply to increase profits. If the companies do use a tiered system, it should be only to curtail economic demand on the systems enough to ensure realtime services for those applications which require it. Logically, garunteeing speed should be pretty expensive for those services which claim they can and will provide them.
Policy seems to reflect this division of ideology. For example while there is no law currently enforcing net neutrality, the US Gov't forbade AT&T from implementing an unneutral IP network for 2 years as terms of their Oligopic merger. Thus while ideologically the neutral model is not enforced, the corporate implementation of a tiered network is curtailed to directly stifle the company, and not to violate an ideology.
Perhaps the point is not clear, or so. Tiered pricing systems are good for phones, or any realtime application, since the application can then gain realtime priority via higher tiers. I doubt the tiered system would be so disastrous either. Or at least lack of neutrality legislation. If I get pissed off when my connection to google gets too slow, and a different ISP doesn't use a tiered system that has a path to google, by god I'm gonna switch. And if I'm willing to switch, that means there's a market. And where there's a market, there will be somebody there willing to make money from it.
As a more direct response, common carrier doesn't have to discriminate using price because its realtime. Instead, it just denies access (like when cingular gives me the 'call failed, network busy' error). So if we wanted to not price discriminate the internet similarly to common carrier pricing, I suppose we could just deny people access altogether, as your similarity to the common carrier suggests. But I beg to differ.
Yes you could, but to make this transparent in the broadcast I think would require a good bit of editing. The pauses manifested in the phone conversation will still be present in the recorded masters on each computer. But at that point, it would be nearly as complicated as editing one sound file that recorded the entire voip conversation.
If you could, I would try to select an application that compresses your 'studio' communication only as much as your 'broadcast' communication. Otherwise, it seems slightly wasteful, because your essentially increasing broadcast bandwidth for 1/2 of your show (the other person) which doesn't even benefit from the added broadcast bandwidth (the compression quality). But the thing about the internet is it's not really designed for high quality real time application, so in general your predicament is problematic. (This rings of anti-net neutrality, apologies) Of course you'll be able to get the job done, many VOIP solutions already exist, but getting it done with the highest quality, this is an issue.
Communication related open source on wikipedia has a few options. freespeak is a long standing open source option, created back in 1991 before any voip applications had much taken off. From its website, it appears that you can select compression quality, so this is at least a good first step to check out. But it does warn that irregular pauses occur, from inadequate bandwidth.
Market regulation vs. Government regulation. I find two different issues often get mixed, for poor results, in this sort of analysis.
One may ask the question, "what is the importance of unsensored information" (including censorship via speed regulations), and one may ask the question "what is the importance of uncensored TCP/IP". These two things are related, but discreet.
Is uncensored information important? Absolutely. And I think it should never be abandoned.
But the question is, what is the best way to maintain this precept. Should the government regulate the use of TCP/IP? Indeed as many have already commented, a primary fear is monopolistic control of the network. But we do have antitrust laws.
At some point, though, one must address the fact that TCP/IP has become much more robust than it was perhaps ever concieved. Data, and information, and entertainment are all converging, and they are moving to the economics provided by this protocol suite. Eventually, I believe, technologies will be unrealizable except on a weighted network, due to the high bandwidth and real time demand on TCP/IP, largely by streaming multimedia applications (i.e. TV over IP).
TCP/IP was never intended for this real time application, and I believe that is why it is receiving such harsh criticism moving towards enabling more reliable communication over the net. More reliable communication at, albiet, the price of other communications.
But everyone's resentment should make it clear from the fear, or anger, which arises when considering soft (speed) sensorship, that there will always be a strong demand for uncensored information. And where there's demand, there's money to be made.
As for me, and this should be taken with a grain of salt, separate from the above, If it takes me ten minutes longer to download the latest linux kernel just so I can get High Definition, quality, commercial and independent television and movies from a small company other than AT&T via TV-IP, hell, I'm in. But one must be careful, and be aware of monopolistic tendancies. And this is where the real fear may be.
Internet Discrimination. If somebody is willing to fork over money to the telecos for the highest bandwidth rate possible, and that telecos denies them strictly because that person/company is competing with the telecos, then I have an issue. But this kind of discrimination very much appears to fall under a more classic anti-trust issue.
Just ran across the WiMaxx wikipedia page. Looks like there are a few key ideas here.
1) 802.16 (WiMax) is not 802.11 (wifi).
2) 802.16 standard allows for operation in both regulated and unregated bands
3) Spring holds licenses for one of these bands.
4) WiMax is considered a better protocal for metropolitan wireless internet due to its AP scheduling method for weaker signals.
5) Not only would WiMax provide better service than EDGE or other cellular data networks, it would provide better wireless internet access, for both public and private implementations
This information in hand, I wouldn't be so agressive to say wifi will be assasinated. But it will probably be replaced by a more robust protocol, which would benefit the telecos as much as the private consumer.
Setting aside that speculation is presented as fact, I would consider for the moment the viability of the comment.
Will cellular companies directly compete with wifi. I assume, one means, by wifi, the 802.11 standard. Otherwise, some may consider the data over cell coverage as wifi.
First, I would be surprised if they ever defeated any private wifi scheme. Getting rid of private wifi would have to be equivalent to getting right of direct to home services, which both AT&T and Verizon offer. Otherwise, if the companies meant to ruin wifi via fcc regulation, this could be potentially problematic, for it would have to overthrow any long standing notion to intentionally radiate emissions via fcc approved equipment at low signal power, which would be extremely problematic.
But I expect the article refers to municipally regulated companies which provide internet access through 802.11 standard. Since this requires a little bit more power, the system's existence relies a little more on the fcc's allowance. But as the fcc recently prefers to deregulate, but despite deregulation encourage competition, I'd be surprised if the fcc regulated because a company wanted them too. The fcc is much more likely to deregulate per corporate request.
Mostly however companies tend towards synergy, I think. Like the iPhone, which can use the cingular's Edge, but if 802.11 is available, either unprotected or with the client aware of a key. With the telecos providing more and more packaged services, I wouldn't be surprised if they just started up public wifi services, offering included 802.11 access with their cell phone data packages and/or domestic broadband services.
Telephone company's aren't stupid, and they will do as much as they can to make more money. Which seems to border bundled packages. Well I take that back, they may be stupid enough. But given lobbying the fcc presents such a large marginal cost compared to marginal return initially, where a more cooperative model at this point presents better marginal returns. Long story short, its just easier not to lobby the fcc anytime soon. And I doubt anywhere in the near future.
Speed limit laws protect a different group of 'citizens' than DRM.
In general, I think the speed limit is there to protect others present on the road. DRM, and copyright, are present to protect ownership.
But laws in general are preventative only in that there are repremands for actions. Artists are only granted copyright through the law, so I think the most effect method of maintaining that mentality is through methods that operate as the law does. This being said, I see watermarking technology will eventually replace DRM, and I think the mentality Burners-Lee references is that very issue. Copyright is only a right after something has been copied. And the best deterrent will most likely reflect the very nature in which copyright is granted.
What's interesting, though, is that although the content can't be blocked on a common carrier, it can still be charged to the sender at different amounts. I.E. a long distance phone call doesn't cost the same as a local phone call, though 'common carrier' is still at play.
Does this suggest that the legislation should reflect discrimination cannot block, only limit?
It seems important to make clear that it is most likely the depression which is causing the measured effect here. This is likely, as Depression generally affects a person's ability to fully perform a variety of tasks. This research seems only to confirm that notion.
Slashdot Mirror
and lots of it.
I thought Virgin was talking about tiered bandwidth. X dollars for slower bandwidth, XX dollars for medium, XXX for fast/capable of streaming HD pr0n? If not forgive me, but I think its fair to assess such tiered network schemes as a violation of neutrality. I get faster internet because I pay more. My service provider isn't neutral at all. They favor me.
In that respect, I think yeah, things are already not neutral. So if you want to throw a fit because your service provider gives you more for paying more, I suppose that's your right. As for me, I really appreciated when my service provider gave me the option of category 'XXX'. It costs more than I used to pay, but is totally worth it....Isn't that why I switched from dial-up?
Most of my classes right now are in Jave. I do most of my Co-op in C. OS-stuff, and lots of pointers. Most of my co-workers are computer engineers, and I'm a Compsci major instead. The algorithms interest me most, and are most interesting in my studies. That's where Java's been nice to me; abstracting levels so I can really understand the Algorithm quickly. However, it doesn't help much with software engineering. I've never needed to implement a new algorithm.
So I'd have to agree that Java doesn't you be a better software engineer. But I'd disagree that it makes you a worse Computer Scientist.
And in my department, C.S. ins't a professional degree; its not part of a tech school, not engineering. It carries similar weights to a physics degree as opposed to a M.E. degree. Algorithms are the focus. Implementations are an exercise. The program isn't geared towards making good programmers. Its geared towards making good algorithm developers.
I agree, and had similar thoughts upon reading the line about sharing, which is different than copying. It is interesting how the post persuades the intent to share was strictly with his wife. I'm not sure how joint property really works in such cases, but if one considers that the two share the physical property of the cd, then wouldn't they be able to share the legally backed up versions as well? Or when they both listen to the cd, does one voilate copyright? Or is it only if they BOTH listen at the same time (which would seem like the only true violation the digital form may gain over the physical one, as far as legal precedent is concerned).
;-P
I guess it goes back to that same old, same old, "does enabling copyright infringement constitute the act itself?" If I remember correctly, the recent answer is no. (Something about an old judgment formerly used in favor of the responsibility of large cable companies. Point is I suppose if they ever both listened to the music at the same time, then that's probably infringement, and everything else shouldn't be. But that's just my intuition
And when you accept that much, then you have to actually prove such an act ever occurred
I ran across this open source group via the fancy Jeff Han stuff. www.nuigroup.com. They're taking images from a webcam, and doing fancy blob detection for a multi-input touch interface kind of thing. They work in windows mostly, with a c++ lib, porting into other windows-y programming environments. Open sound control (a lightweight protocol) VVVV (I'm still not sure what this is), DirectX layers, and more.
It would work great to try and integrate as a lower level windows driver. Right now only applications work with a library. But perhaps a driver, working with a webcam driver, presenting itself as an input device? Eh? Well its certainly got potential to consider.
Ironically I got interested in the project from the perspective as a linux project. It would work very well on an embedded linux system, passing information on the pci or usb bus to any which os. But embedded programming is a whole different ballpark from the rest of the programming world.
I recently began a coop at an embeded systems company, doing, whatelse, linux development for their platforms. I've read everything I could get my hands on about linux on embedded systems. For they most part, they're all redundant. Orielly's Understanding the Linux Kernel and Linux Device Drivers have been the two most useful books.
That said, neither is the "linux is the same embedded or not" argument all that good. I sure wish it was. Most information out there is about the x86 system, which embedded applications tend to avoid. On the other hand, books that target themselves towards the embedded market tend to mix and match different architectures. What I needed was comprehensive coverage of different processes specific to all the different platforms, because this is where kernel documentation or other resources tend to be rather skim.
Long story short: there was no quick substitute for paging through assembly code, and the very beginings of c code, to learn what I needed to know. For example, bootstrapping elfs verses non bootstrapping elfs, figuring out which code is which, the addresses that code executes at, etc. is all different for different platforms. In the least, it was only well explained for x86, and there was no explinations for the different standards and structures used in the boot process. (Mips, for example, uses an argv/c boot standard, ppc looks for the begining and end of a string address).
This is probably minor and old hat so far in the conversation. Many valid points above. My biggest caveot is calling the insertion of owner metadata into the file DRM. Strictly speaking, it isn't. There are many watermarking startups around that could explain why. These companies, which focus on embedding metadata within files (either as actual or digital), poise themselves as the solution to DRM. And I would say that unencrypted, unembedded (in the hard to get to sense), un-'watermarked' user metadata in apple files is simply a dummed down, unglorified verision of this very technology (which again differentiates itself from DRM).
But yeah, I mean, I suppose you could call this kind of thing "digital rights management" as long as you concede that the very laws and executive system behind it which deter a body from breaking into your house via a threat of incarceration "analog rights management". I'm sure the guys in jail could complain that nobody told them you can get their finger prints off the door handle, and that fingerprints were only created, with little mention by whoever created fingerprints, to manage their right to or to not steal.
I think there are two separate issues confounding this discussion.
The first is that at a philosophical capitalistic level, a tiered (but not sensored) network may or may not be advantageous.
The second is that at a real capitalistic level, the telecos are making arguments for all the wrong reasons, following the general sense of a greedy capitalistic oligopoly double dipping into utilities at every chance possible.
I find the latter incites an emotional response to the former, affecting the ability to speak logically about the former. I feel like the debate is better addressed when one is conscious of these two separate sub-debates, so that one can address the source of one's position.
For example, while I don't thing it's a good idea to demand neutral networks, following from my studies on similar liberal 'neutral controls' over television, I also don't think that the telecos should be double dipping simply to increase profits. If the companies do use a tiered system, it should be only to curtail economic demand on the systems enough to ensure realtime services for those applications which require it. Logically, garunteeing speed should be pretty expensive for those services which claim they can and will provide them.
Policy seems to reflect this division of ideology. For example while there is no law currently enforcing net neutrality, the US Gov't forbade AT&T from implementing an unneutral IP network for 2 years as terms of their Oligopic merger. Thus while ideologically the neutral model is not enforced, the corporate implementation of a tiered network is curtailed to directly stifle the company, and not to violate an ideology.
Perhaps the point is not clear, or so. Tiered pricing systems are good for phones, or any realtime application, since the application can then gain realtime priority via higher tiers. I doubt the tiered system would be so disastrous either. Or at least lack of neutrality legislation. If I get pissed off when my connection to google gets too slow, and a different ISP doesn't use a tiered system that has a path to google, by god I'm gonna switch. And if I'm willing to switch, that means there's a market. And where there's a market, there will be somebody there willing to make money from it.
As a more direct response, common carrier doesn't have to discriminate using price because its realtime. Instead, it just denies access (like when cingular gives me the 'call failed, network busy' error). So if we wanted to not price discriminate the internet similarly to common carrier pricing, I suppose we could just deny people access altogether, as your similarity to the common carrier suggests. But I beg to differ.
Yes you could, but to make this transparent in the broadcast I think would require a good bit of editing. The pauses manifested in the phone conversation will still be present in the recorded masters on each computer. But at that point, it would be nearly as complicated as editing one sound file that recorded the entire voip conversation.
If you could, I would try to select an application that compresses your 'studio' communication only as much as your 'broadcast' communication. Otherwise, it seems slightly wasteful, because your essentially increasing broadcast bandwidth for 1/2 of your show (the other person) which doesn't even benefit from the added broadcast bandwidth (the compression quality). But the thing about the internet is it's not really designed for high quality real time application, so in general your predicament is problematic. (This rings of anti-net neutrality, apologies) Of course you'll be able to get the job done, many VOIP solutions already exist, but getting it done with the highest quality, this is an issue.
Communication related open source on wikipedia has a few options. freespeak is a long standing open source option, created back in 1991 before any voip applications had much taken off. From its website, it appears that you can select compression quality, so this is at least a good first step to check out. But it does warn that irregular pauses occur, from inadequate bandwidth.
Good Luck!
Market regulation vs. Government regulation. I find two different issues often get mixed, for poor results, in this sort of analysis.
One may ask the question, "what is the importance of unsensored information" (including censorship via speed regulations), and one may ask the question "what is the importance of uncensored TCP/IP". These two things are related, but discreet.
Is uncensored information important? Absolutely. And I think it should never be abandoned.
But the question is, what is the best way to maintain this precept. Should the government regulate the use of TCP/IP? Indeed as many have already commented, a primary fear is monopolistic control of the network. But we do have antitrust laws.
At some point, though, one must address the fact that TCP/IP has become much more robust than it was perhaps ever concieved. Data, and information, and entertainment are all converging, and they are moving to the economics provided by this protocol suite. Eventually, I believe, technologies will be unrealizable except on a weighted network, due to the high bandwidth and real time demand on TCP/IP, largely by streaming multimedia applications (i.e. TV over IP).
TCP/IP was never intended for this real time application, and I believe that is why it is receiving such harsh criticism moving towards enabling more reliable communication over the net. More reliable communication at, albiet, the price of other communications.
But everyone's resentment should make it clear from the fear, or anger, which arises when considering soft (speed) sensorship, that there will always be a strong demand for uncensored information. And where there's demand, there's money to be made.
As for me, and this should be taken with a grain of salt, separate from the above, If it takes me ten minutes longer to download the latest linux kernel just so I can get High Definition, quality, commercial and independent television and movies from a small company other than AT&T via TV-IP, hell, I'm in. But one must be careful, and be aware of monopolistic tendancies. And this is where the real fear may be.
Internet Discrimination. If somebody is willing to fork over money to the telecos for the highest bandwidth rate possible, and that telecos denies them strictly because that person/company is competing with the telecos, then I have an issue. But this kind of discrimination very much appears to fall under a more classic anti-trust issue.
Just ran across the WiMaxx wikipedia page. Looks like there are a few key ideas here.
1) 802.16 (WiMax) is not 802.11 (wifi).
5) Not only would WiMax provide better service than EDGE or other cellular data networks, it would provide better wireless internet access, for both public and private implementations2) 802.16 standard allows for operation in both regulated and unregated bands
3) Spring holds licenses for one of these bands.
4) WiMax is considered a better protocal for metropolitan wireless internet due to its AP scheduling method for weaker signals.
This information in hand, I wouldn't be so agressive to say wifi will be assasinated. But it will probably be replaced by a more robust protocol, which would benefit the telecos as much as the private consumer.
Setting aside that speculation is presented as fact, I would consider for the moment the viability of the comment.
Will cellular companies directly compete with wifi. I assume, one means, by wifi, the 802.11 standard. Otherwise, some may consider the data over cell coverage as wifi.
First, I would be surprised if they ever defeated any private wifi scheme. Getting rid of private wifi would have to be equivalent to getting right of direct to home services, which both AT&T and Verizon offer. Otherwise, if the companies meant to ruin wifi via fcc regulation, this could be potentially problematic, for it would have to overthrow any long standing notion to intentionally radiate emissions via fcc approved equipment at low signal power, which would be extremely problematic.
But I expect the article refers to municipally regulated companies which provide internet access through 802.11 standard. Since this requires a little bit more power, the system's existence relies a little more on the fcc's allowance. But as the fcc recently prefers to deregulate, but despite deregulation encourage competition, I'd be surprised if the fcc regulated because a company wanted them too. The fcc is much more likely to deregulate per corporate request.
Mostly however companies tend towards synergy, I think. Like the iPhone, which can use the cingular's Edge, but if 802.11 is available, either unprotected or with the client aware of a key. With the telecos providing more and more packaged services, I wouldn't be surprised if they just started up public wifi services, offering included 802.11 access with their cell phone data packages and/or domestic broadband services.
Telephone company's aren't stupid, and they will do as much as they can to make more money. Which seems to border bundled packages. Well I take that back, they may be stupid enough. But given lobbying the fcc presents such a large marginal cost compared to marginal return initially, where a more cooperative model at this point presents better marginal returns. Long story short, its just easier not to lobby the fcc anytime soon. And I doubt anywhere in the near future.
Speed limit laws protect a different group of 'citizens' than DRM. In general, I think the speed limit is there to protect others present on the road. DRM, and copyright, are present to protect ownership. But laws in general are preventative only in that there are repremands for actions. Artists are only granted copyright through the law, so I think the most effect method of maintaining that mentality is through methods that operate as the law does. This being said, I see watermarking technology will eventually replace DRM, and I think the mentality Burners-Lee references is that very issue. Copyright is only a right after something has been copied. And the best deterrent will most likely reflect the very nature in which copyright is granted.
What's interesting, though, is that although the content can't be blocked on a common carrier, it can still be charged to the sender at different amounts. I.E. a long distance phone call doesn't cost the same as a local phone call, though 'common carrier' is still at play. Does this suggest that the legislation should reflect discrimination cannot block, only limit?
It seems important to make clear that it is most likely the depression which is causing the measured effect here. This is likely, as Depression generally affects a person's ability to fully perform a variety of tasks. This research seems only to confirm that notion.