Economics in a global age isn't about dividing up the current pie, it is about making new pies. Just like those that worked in manufacturing for years, we all have to continually adapt. The mindset that is killing America is that wealth is somehow "traded" and is static. The truth is that wealth has to be continually generated by innovators. "Programming" as a skill is more replaceable now than ever because it is much more accessible. Science & Tech workers need to be innovators and business leaders these days.
My experience has been mostly with workers in Malaysia. I have found them to be extremely capable and knowledgeable. They are no more "stuck" at a job than we are. In fact, it is pretty difficult to find someone there willing to stay put for more than a couple years. The different countries have cultural oddities too. In India it seemed like people wanted to work for large recognizable companies.
That is simplistic. We are all born free by birth. It is government that makes people less free... all government can be is a tool of other people. A form of Government delivers no principles nor should be used to derive those principles. Government is the process in which the principles of a society are executed. In a pure Democracy, "We the People" only works if you are lucky enough to be on the side with the most votes. Ask an African-American circa 1850 what "We the People" meant for them. A just and civilized government sets people free from one another and protects their rights from the "mob of the day" based on principles.
I think it is an important distinction to teach this. I hope Utah isn't the only one. (The I'm not clear on their reasoning). In a pure Democracy there are no individual rights. Our Constitution creates barriers to the power of the Republic (which is driven largely by Democratic processes). Americans would reject a pure democracy like the plague. (Hopefully!). I remember Mr. Bush touting "Democracy" without really realizing the meaning (and now Mr. Obama). They probably should have went to school in Utah. A true freedom-loving individual would speak the praises of individual rights - not forms of government. Rights can be protected in a variety of forms of government but pure democracy is NOT one of them.
I never claimed the protests are not free speech. By themselves they are. But saying the protest has a right to make use of a taxpayer wi-fi system as part of the protest is the area of contention. The system exists because of the efforts of people who believe both sides of the issue I'm sure. It is unfair to block it to the protesters as much as it is unfair to force the other side to fund their access. I think the government is wrong in blocking the site but I think it is also wrong to force ALL WI taxpayers to aid in the protest in any way. The wi-fi either needs to be open for everything or shut down completely. There needs to be a steadfast policy here for all users. There is no fair way to "regulate" the speech it gives access to. There will always be an oppressed minority... no matter what the issue.
I can see both sides of this issue. On one hand I am disturbed that a government is blocking a web site but imagine if this was a skinhead rally... few would be debating the wisdom of blocking web access to them or whatever it is they want to use to spread their message. (Facebook, hate sites, etc.) The government can't pick and choose which groups get a protected soap box and which don't... The First Amendment guarantees your right to speak - but does not provide the tools to do the speaking nor the audience. (You have to acquire those yourself). You can write a book but that doesn't mean you have a "right" to a printing press.... you need to buy or make one yourself. Saying government employees can protest against the taxpayer using wi-fi provided by that same taxpayer isn't protected "free speech"... it is yet another entitlement and the root contention of the protest in the first place.
This is what the Left doesn't seem to "get" though. NN CAN be abused because of the stupid FCC. Once upon a time it would have been unheard of to have fines for swearing on TV yet they are common place today. The FCC effectively censors all forms of media all the time. Somehow you think the Internet will be different? Dream on. Both "sides" are in an alarmist dream land on NN.
It isn't an issue of the concept being sound - it is the practical enforcement of the concept. Good ideas implemented poorly by a government that can't keep the post office viable or get aid to hurricane victims isn't going to help anyway. For me the debate over NN is moot. The real debate is can the FCC implement it without corruption or government creep? Sadly, there is little evidence to show they can.
Amen. We already have plenty of laws forbidding business practices most NN alarmists already preach are going to happen. (Or could much easier be added instead of getting the FCC into the Internet) And any observed lack of competition between ISPs is largely caused by the same FCC NN want to hand the keys to. It's a bit of a feel good idea with almost no practical or ethical usefulness in the real world. I honestly don't care what the FCC or government says because it all happens on their whim anyway. The mindless mob grants them the power whether I approve or not. If Government is authorized to prevent something you just handed them the keys to *someday* do the opposite and allow it. Once they are in... they never go away. That is how this works.
I agree, behavior profiling is probably more along the lines of what I am thinking but even that can be context sensitive to countries and races. If behavior profiling reveals problems within specific races or religions it can't be ignored in terms of security screening. The TSA is trying to screen passengers with complete blinders on and I think this mess is a demonstration of that. The loss of focus will actually make travel less secure. (Not that I agree with any of it, my opinion is it is up to the airlines and their insurance companies to figure out who should/shouldn't be on their airplanes and how they police that.)
I have been shrugging off the Big Brother alarmists over the last few months but man it is hard not to see that the current administration is seeing how far they can push it on us. It is slightly terrifying.
On a side note, a lot of this is caused by law enforcement being ordered to see everyone as a terrorist instead of profiling them and using common sense. When they look for a serial killer they look for loner white males because you know what? Almost all serial killers are loner white males. Don't harass the potential victims because you are afraid of harassing the potential terrorists.
I agree, throttling is unacceptable, but why do we need NN? We just need customer awareness. Customers will not accept weird corporate throttling when educated about it... and trust me, it doesn't take many customers ditching an ISP or voicing public displeasure to get them to change. Businesses want to make money and they need customers to do that. We need to educate the customers, not empower the government. We don't need the Government to step in and enforce NN like they have with the physical roads. (*gulp* Toll roads!)
And taxpayers helped pay for the roads to your house and work, does that mean they get to dictate what happens in either one? ISPs are paid to deliver information, believing they will deliver less information is a bit of paranoia and is bad business. Awareness is more prudent here than handing they keys over to the FCC.
Agreed. The First Amendment affirms your right to speak but not the right to demand a publicly-supplied soap box. On a side note, it's odd that all kinds of interest groups are pushing NN... Right Wing and Left Wing alike. The radicals realize NN can guarantee them an audience by law - not by earning it.
The only real way to police poor driving habits is via auto insurance. In the long run, bad & distracted drivers will pay more and cost the insurance companies more because of accidents. In turn, the insurance companies and the auto makers will innovate and create ways to distract drivers less. It is a lesson in patience & capitalism more than anything... Government force is excessive and useless in this case. Allow the industry to tackle the problem - creating jobs and technologies in the process.
It doesn't necessarily mean making more money on existing customers. Providing tiered services could increase their customer base. Lowering the cost of entry for a service is a great way to increase customers and gives competition points. It isn't as sinister as it seems... it is good business. Companies like this only make money when people get their service... there are choices.
The "Core of the problem" is government, not who is in control. When a government has grown to a point of such abuse it is inevitable that someone will abuse it. Government corruption exists because it has the power to do corrupt things. Lobbyists exist because we allow government to grow powerful enough to be lobbied. Reducing centralized power is the answer.
That is like asking what books censorship stopped from being written. It's not what they made wrong it is what they made impossible or unlikely. You want to apply NN as a concept without looking at practical application of it. (And who applies "neutral")
The phone system has built in the ability to regulate traffic that the Internet simply doesn't have. (i.e. Erlang model) NN is a physical practicality in the phone system and a near-term impossibility on the Internet.(At this time) And ignore the FCC abuses all you want - that is who you are inviting into this mess.
I believe the FCC not enforcing its own policies addresses how NN is/will not working with the phone system. A law is only as good as who polices it. One example: AT&T and Verizon and others were implicated in aiding the NSA wire tap in 2006 illegally but the FCC ignored it.
If the FCC can't be trusted protecting their own phone system policies, getting them to police NN and not be swayed by politics and special interests is a dream. A great idea being handed over to a bad heavily lobbied and corrupt organization isn't going to help.
Besides the FCC simply being a bad cop to rely on - innovation will suffer. Land line phone companies have invested very little in innovation and their networks. Reduced demand and income (from people that WOULD pay more for tailored access) and loss of people that think they pay too much for minimum access and just canceled the service - means less money for re-investment in the network. Our phone system has little flexibility to adapt itself price-wise.
Imagine if ISPs were required to support only one dial-up speed initially; Or had no flexibility to price points of entry and no ability to have ISPs tailor non-neutral (paid) content to offset their costs to lower entry-level prices. (AOL, Compuserve, etc.) One could attribute the radical Internet growth a decade ago to the lack of NN, not the need for it.
It's impossible to say "what would have been better". Has it improved? Very little. Is it overpriced and in many locations technically antiquated? Yep. (Which makes it not so neutral) Does the Government abuse the phone system to monitor its citizens? You bet. How about radio? Television? The FCC has a scary history of censorship and fines in the name of a moral majority. The content of the web isn't the Government's business but NN will be interpreted as an open invite for old guys in suits to make it their biz. Also, the FCC's track record on confronting the Federal Government on corporations or spy agencies violating rules isn't very good. A great theory handed over to a bad organization isn't going to benefit anyone.
The point is I think we should be very prudent before allowing the Government the power to force NN. I'm not saying it sounds bad or would be bad, I just think it is something to be considered with an objective and skeptical mind because there is no "undo" button on Government. Plus it is hard to argue that proper activism and awareness have been fully exercised before making this drastic step. Government is a crude club that should be used as a last resort. I think we can combat this via our dollars instead of giving these giant corporations a single government entity to lobby they should be lobbying us. ISPs are in business to deliver information, not doing so is bad press, bad business and narrow thinking.
NN sounds great on paper but if the plan is to have the Feds to it fairly - dream on. I'll take my changes with corporations over the FCC any day. A corporation can't raid my house or put me in jail.
There is always choice. There is the choice to not use a service. If you don't like a provider's policies don't use the provider. Nobody has a "right" to a service provided by someone else... that was made illegal along with slavery. The only thing NN will do is give corporations the ability to lobby the FCC instead of the consumers. Just look at how "fair" and "neutral" our radio and TV is. People seriously want to invite the FCC into the industry? Give me a break. The pleas for NN are mostly paranoia and propaganda - if not plain foolishness. This will be regretted.
Slashdot Mirror
Economics in a global age isn't about dividing up the current pie, it is about making new pies. Just like those that worked in manufacturing for years, we all have to continually adapt. The mindset that is killing America is that wealth is somehow "traded" and is static. The truth is that wealth has to be continually generated by innovators. "Programming" as a skill is more replaceable now than ever because it is much more accessible. Science & Tech workers need to be innovators and business leaders these days.
My experience has been mostly with workers in Malaysia. I have found them to be extremely capable and knowledgeable. They are no more "stuck" at a job than we are. In fact, it is pretty difficult to find someone there willing to stay put for more than a couple years. The different countries have cultural oddities too. In India it seemed like people wanted to work for large recognizable companies.
That is simplistic. We are all born free by birth. It is government that makes people less free... all government can be is a tool of other people. A form of Government delivers no principles nor should be used to derive those principles. Government is the process in which the principles of a society are executed.
In a pure Democracy, "We the People" only works if you are lucky enough to be on the side with the most votes. Ask an African-American circa 1850 what "We the People" meant for them. A just and civilized government sets people free from one another and protects their rights from the "mob of the day" based on principles.
I think it is an important distinction to teach this. I hope Utah isn't the only one. (The I'm not clear on their reasoning). In a pure Democracy there are no individual rights. Our Constitution creates barriers to the power of the Republic (which is driven largely by Democratic processes). Americans would reject a pure democracy like the plague. (Hopefully!). I remember Mr. Bush touting "Democracy" without really realizing the meaning (and now Mr. Obama). They probably should have went to school in Utah. A true freedom-loving individual would speak the praises of individual rights - not forms of government. Rights can be protected in a variety of forms of government but pure democracy is NOT one of them.
I never claimed the protests are not free speech. By themselves they are. But saying the protest has a right to make use of a taxpayer wi-fi system as part of the protest is the area of contention. The system exists because of the efforts of people who believe both sides of the issue I'm sure. It is unfair to block it to the protesters as much as it is unfair to force the other side to fund their access. I think the government is wrong in blocking the site but I think it is also wrong to force ALL WI taxpayers to aid in the protest in any way. The wi-fi either needs to be open for everything or shut down completely. There needs to be a steadfast policy here for all users. There is no fair way to "regulate" the speech it gives access to. There will always be an oppressed minority... no matter what the issue.
I can see both sides of this issue. On one hand I am disturbed that a government is blocking a web site but imagine if this was a skinhead rally... few would be debating the wisdom of blocking web access to them or whatever it is they want to use to spread their message. (Facebook, hate sites, etc.) The government can't pick and choose which groups get a protected soap box and which don't... The First Amendment guarantees your right to speak - but does not provide the tools to do the speaking nor the audience. (You have to acquire those yourself). You can write a book but that doesn't mean you have a "right" to a printing press.... you need to buy or make one yourself. Saying government employees can protest against the taxpayer using wi-fi provided by that same taxpayer isn't protected "free speech"... it is yet another entitlement and the root contention of the protest in the first place.
This is what the Left doesn't seem to "get" though. NN CAN be abused because of the stupid FCC. Once upon a time it would have been unheard of to have fines for swearing on TV yet they are common place today. The FCC effectively censors all forms of media all the time. Somehow you think the Internet will be different? Dream on. Both "sides" are in an alarmist dream land on NN.
It isn't an issue of the concept being sound - it is the practical enforcement of the concept. Good ideas implemented poorly by a government that can't keep the post office viable or get aid to hurricane victims isn't going to help anyway. For me the debate over NN is moot. The real debate is can the FCC implement it without corruption or government creep? Sadly, there is little evidence to show they can.
Amen. We already have plenty of laws forbidding business practices most NN alarmists already preach are going to happen. (Or could much easier be added instead of getting the FCC into the Internet) And any observed lack of competition between ISPs is largely caused by the same FCC NN want to hand the keys to. It's a bit of a feel good idea with almost no practical or ethical usefulness in the real world. I honestly don't care what the FCC or government says because it all happens on their whim anyway. The mindless mob grants them the power whether I approve or not. If Government is authorized to prevent something you just handed them the keys to *someday* do the opposite and allow it. Once they are in... they never go away. That is how this works.
I agree, behavior profiling is probably more along the lines of what I am thinking but even that can be context sensitive to countries and races. If behavior profiling reveals problems within specific races or religions it can't be ignored in terms of security screening. The TSA is trying to screen passengers with complete blinders on and I think this mess is a demonstration of that. The loss of focus will actually make travel less secure. (Not that I agree with any of it, my opinion is it is up to the airlines and their insurance companies to figure out who should/shouldn't be on their airplanes and how they police that.)
I have been shrugging off the Big Brother alarmists over the last few months but man it is hard not to see that the current administration is seeing how far they can push it on us. It is slightly terrifying.
On a side note, a lot of this is caused by law enforcement being ordered to see everyone as a terrorist instead of profiling them and using common sense. When they look for a serial killer they look for loner white males because you know what? Almost all serial killers are loner white males. Don't harass the potential victims because you are afraid of harassing the potential terrorists.
I agree, throttling is unacceptable, but why do we need NN? We just need customer awareness. Customers will not accept weird corporate throttling when educated about it... and trust me, it doesn't take many customers ditching an ISP or voicing public displeasure to get them to change. Businesses want to make money and they need customers to do that. We need to educate the customers, not empower the government.
We don't need the Government to step in and enforce NN like they have with the physical roads. (*gulp* Toll roads!)
Well put. "Rights" does not mean other people are slaves to your desires and wishes. It is an abused concept.
I guess the FCC is the answer? lol
And taxpayers helped pay for the roads to your house and work, does that mean they get to dictate what happens in either one? ISPs are paid to deliver information, believing they will deliver less information is a bit of paranoia and is bad business. Awareness is more prudent here than handing they keys over to the FCC.
Agreed. The First Amendment affirms your right to speak but not the right to demand a publicly-supplied soap box. On a side note, it's odd that all kinds of interest groups are pushing NN... Right Wing and Left Wing alike. The radicals realize NN can guarantee them an audience by law - not by earning it.
The only real way to police poor driving habits is via auto insurance. In the long run, bad & distracted drivers will pay more and cost the insurance companies more because of accidents. In turn, the insurance companies and the auto makers will innovate and create ways to distract drivers less. It is a lesson in patience & capitalism more than anything... Government force is excessive and useless in this case. Allow the industry to tackle the problem - creating jobs and technologies in the process.
It doesn't necessarily mean making more money on existing customers. Providing tiered services could increase their customer base. Lowering the cost of entry for a service is a great way to increase customers and gives competition points. It isn't as sinister as it seems... it is good business. Companies like this only make money when people get their service... there are choices.
The "Core of the problem" is government, not who is in control. When a government has grown to a point of such abuse it is inevitable that someone will abuse it. Government corruption exists because it has the power to do corrupt things. Lobbyists exist because we allow government to grow powerful enough to be lobbied. Reducing centralized power is the answer.
That is like asking what books censorship stopped from being written. It's not what they made wrong it is what they made impossible or unlikely. You want to apply NN as a concept without looking at practical application of it. (And who applies "neutral")
The phone system has built in the ability to regulate traffic that the Internet simply doesn't have. (i.e. Erlang model) NN is a physical practicality in the phone system and a near-term impossibility on the Internet.(At this time) And ignore the FCC abuses all you want - that is who you are inviting into this mess.
I believe the FCC not enforcing its own policies addresses how NN is/will not working with the phone system. A law is only as good as who polices it.
One example: AT&T and Verizon and others were implicated in aiding the NSA wire tap in 2006 illegally but the FCC ignored it.
http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1610&Itemid=125
If the FCC can't be trusted protecting their own phone system policies, getting them to police NN and not be swayed by politics and special interests is a dream. A great idea being handed over to a bad heavily lobbied and corrupt organization isn't going to help.
Besides the FCC simply being a bad cop to rely on - innovation will suffer. Land line phone companies have invested very little in innovation and their networks. Reduced demand and income (from people that WOULD pay more for tailored access) and loss of people that think they pay too much for minimum access and just canceled the service - means less money for re-investment in the network. Our phone system has little flexibility to adapt itself price-wise.
Imagine if ISPs were required to support only one dial-up speed initially; Or had no flexibility to price points of entry and no ability to have ISPs tailor non-neutral (paid) content to offset their costs to lower entry-level prices. (AOL, Compuserve, etc.)
One could attribute the radical Internet growth a decade ago to the lack of NN, not the need for it.
It's impossible to say "what would have been better". Has it improved? Very little. Is it overpriced and in many locations technically antiquated? Yep. (Which makes it not so neutral) Does the Government abuse the phone system to monitor its citizens? You bet. How about radio? Television? The FCC has a scary history of censorship and fines in the name of a moral majority. The content of the web isn't the Government's business but NN will be interpreted as an open invite for old guys in suits to make it their biz. Also, the FCC's track record on confronting the Federal Government on corporations or spy agencies violating rules isn't very good. A great theory handed over to a bad organization isn't going to benefit anyone.
The point is I think we should be very prudent before allowing the Government the power to force NN. I'm not saying it sounds bad or would be bad, I just think it is something to be considered with an objective and skeptical mind because there is no "undo" button on Government. Plus it is hard to argue that proper activism and awareness have been fully exercised before making this drastic step. Government is a crude club that should be used as a last resort.
I think we can combat this via our dollars instead of giving these giant corporations a single government entity to lobby they should be lobbying us. ISPs are in business to deliver information, not doing so is bad press, bad business and narrow thinking.
NN sounds great on paper but if the plan is to have the Feds to it fairly - dream on. I'll take my changes with corporations over the FCC any day. A corporation can't raid my house or put me in jail.
There is always choice. There is the choice to not use a service. If you don't like a provider's policies don't use the provider. Nobody has a "right" to a service provided by someone else... that was made illegal along with slavery. The only thing NN will do is give corporations the ability to lobby the FCC instead of the consumers. Just look at how "fair" and "neutral" our radio and TV is. People seriously want to invite the FCC into the industry? Give me a break. The pleas for NN are mostly paranoia and propaganda - if not plain foolishness. This will be regretted.