Why do you think the government doesn't already have that power? That's my point. You are saying we can't regulate corporate control of the internet because that means giving the power to the government... except that the government already can. All we do is lose MORE control to corporations.
Uhm... except that they weren't. The "internet" as we know it was funded first by DARPA, then the NSF, both taxpayer funded organizations. Those companies were PAID to build the internet, with our money. They continue to get grants and funding to increase speeds, lower costs, and provide wider and better services, but then complain that they just can't possibly get by making only a billion dollars a year in profit, they need some help... AGAIN.
Uhm, can you please tell me how this is anywhere near a meaningful analogy? Net neutrality wouldn't require Ford to give out pamphlets on GM cars, it would prevent Ford from buying the roads and then charging me again, in addition to the taxes already collected from me for the roads, for driving a GM car.
You will find my name just above this post, should you be curious. My question to you would be: Why do you think these things are intertwined? Why do you think net neutrality already comes with government control and censorship, or even better, how not having net neutrality would PREVENT government censorship?
It sure seems to me that they can interfere all they want now, and make any sort of craptacular censorship regulations they want. All without net neutrality being an issue. So how then does preventing corporations from controlling things mean the government automatically does, or doesn't? By conflating these two entirely separate issues, you create a false sense of equality and causality, where none exist. We have already seen that the government can pass laws to censor what you can find on the net, and they did it under current conditions. Having 'net neutrality' and packet equivalence for any traffic has no bearing on that issue at all.
As soon as I see a free market, I will trust it to correct itself. Since such a thing has never, and can never exist, we have to keep tabs on what is going on. If you find K-Mart too expensive, you can go to Wal-Mart. That's the free market at work, right?
Except it isn't, since Wal-mart artificially deflates the cost of goods it sells by externalizing costs, it removes itself from anything resembling a 'free' market. A free market *requires* all costs be internalized. This is never going to happen.
It comes down to this: Google pays their ISP for the bits they send. I pay my ISP for the bits I request. If I happen to request them from Google, my ISP now says Google should have to pay them to deliver it, despite the fact that I *already* paid them to receive them, no matter where they came from.
As we look on things right now, Comcast already has a phone offering, a TV offering, and a net offering. They have their own streaming movie service that no one uses because it sucks. Without net neutrality, they can choose to block Netflix packets completely, or slow them to the point where they might as well be blocked, while their movie service just hums along. How long does it take until this circumvents the "free market" and the will of the people, by making Comcast's movie service more popular than Netflix, not because of content, or value, but simply artificially enhanced usability? How long til Netflix dies, because every single ISP in the country slows them down in favor of their own service, which gets priority traffic? How does that constitute a "free market" at all? Especially when Comcast can offer their service at a loss, undercutting what Netflix can offer? How is that the best company coming out ahead?
This becomes even more worrisome now that Comcast is buying NBC. We now have content provider and content delivery in one. How long until they start charging based on the origin of the content, not just its delivery? Will NBC produced shows, movies, and content be delivered cheaper and faster, while everyone else's are slowed down, unless they pay up?
The argument is usually made that people can just "switch providers, if they don't like what they do", but for a vast majority of Americans, that either isn't possible, or isn't viable. I have exactly two choices where I am, Comcast or Verizon. The Verizon service is... flaky, which is being generous. It shouldn't even qualify as "broadband". So my choice is Comcast. Oh, and thanks to clever lobbying on the part of Comcast, cable franchises in my state are set at the state level, meaning I can no longer even petition my local government for a change, nor vote for anything different.
I also like the argument put forward by some that we could just "do without broadband". Yes, I am sure we could, if we wanted to give up our chance for a real future. As more government functions and services are placed online, more people go to school online, or do their jobs online, a good high speed connection is not just desirable but required.
I understand the subscriber agreement, and I know the current limitations on the backbone. That's kind of the point though. I pay for 16mbps service, with the understanding that I won't be using that full bandwidth all the time. I still fail to see how that means Comcast needs to get more money from the upstream, when I already paid the freight charge for those bits.
This isn't a "peering" agreement, because Comcast and Level3 are in no way peers. Comcast will always be a 'last mile' provider, not a backbone provider. That means that near EVERYONE sends more data to them than they receive. So everyone should have to pay Comcast an extra fee to carry their traffic? Even after I already paid for it?
I request bits. Comcast has agreed to provide me those bits at a certain cost. They already collected the cost of handling those bits. Now they want more to handle those bits, because I actually use what I pay for? Given that Comcast made near 3.5 billion dollars last year, and puts a miniscule fraction of their earnings back into upgrades to their system, I find it hard to cry for them. They are following every other American business down the 'take what we can now, reinvestment for the future be damned' approach. Lets not forget, taxpayer money was already given to backbone providers to increase bandwidth, most of it disappeared into stock dividends with little spent on infrastructure.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how accepting the traffic I asked for, and pay them to provide, puts Comcast in a "bad situation". If they couldn't handle 16mbps streams to each of their customers, then they shouldn't be CHARGING for 16mbps streams. These old agreements are basically crap. Both sides already pay for their bandwidth. Comcast just wants to collect again. Its that simple. They sold connections to each and every customer with a bandwidth expectation attached. They even charge in tiers, you can get 5mbps for much less than 16mbps. That would seem to imply that should I pay for that full 16, I get it, and they agree to provide it, not charge someone else for the bandwidth they already charged me for.
Uhm... no.
Your little car analogy has no bearing on what is happening here.
Trucks in the other state (Level3) are coming into our state, where I prepaid the toll with the toll booth operator (Comcast) because I wanted that delivery. I already paid the $9.99 for unlimited toll passes, and now the toll booth operator wants to charge the truck AGAIN as it passes through. The toll for that truck has already been paid at both ends, but now the toll booth operator threatens to hold that truck up if the truck doesn't pay again.
What I find truly amazing is they seem to be able to handle the bandwidth from their own movie service without an issue. Granted, it doesn't have the demand that Netflix does, but then isn't that their hope? And if it were to become as popular tomorrow, would they demand a paid peering agreement with their own VOD division? Or cry that their network could not stand the strain?
They advertised that I could stream movies, music, and anything else at blindingly fast speeds, and now that I actually want to do that, they claim they can't do it? They need more money to upgrade their service? Haven't I been paying for that service all along? It sounds to me like someone owes me a rather large refund for service I paid for that they were not able to provide.
Just because they had an agreement with another CDN doesn't keep this from being a net neutrality issue.
I pay Comcast for a 16mbps connection. I expect to be able to use that. Further, I expect to be able to use that for whatever bits I choose. A Netflix stream uses only a fraction of that, meaning I am well within what I have paid for.
The same is true on the other end. Level3 gets paid by Netflix for the bits going out, and Level3 pays backbone providers. Everyone in the transaction is already getting paid for the traffic being carried.
Comcast wants paid for traffic coming in from Level3, but its already been paid for that traffic...BY ME. They then threaten to cut off a particular service if they do not get their payment. That makes this exactly a net neutrality issue.
So a company that produces more than one magazine submits a bunch of apps, and only the one that deals with a competitor to Apple gets rejected... and somehow that means they submitted it just to get rejected? An interesting notion, given that their other apps appear in the App Store, it was only this particular one that got rejected. Sounds like you don't have all the facts.
Uhm, no, I suspect in that case they wouldn't let you put their logo on things, or advertise free.
Now if we could talk about what this issue is really about, great. Since what is being blocked is not an ADVERTISEMENT, its a magazine. Now, if your app appeared in a magazine, say "iPhone Developer", and Google blocked it from appearing in the Android Market, is that wrong? Yes. Just as its wrong for Apple to block a magazine about a competitor from theirs. This isn't about advertising, its about content. Oh, and by the way, a rather large number of the ads I get in my ad-supported android apps are for... iPhone products.
Actually, it would be more like stocking the BestBuy catalog in the magazine section at Wal-Mart.
Actually no, it would be more like stocking "Mac developer" magazine at Wal-Mart, or even Barnes and Noble, which in fact they DO. They sell a rather large selection of Apple based magazine content at B&N. Amazon sells books about the Nook, B&N sells books about the Kindle. This is a magazine they blocked, you know, CONTENT.
I would think the question is, why am I forced to limit my selections to the App Store? It is my phone, right? I paid for it. I own it. Its mine. Why can't I install anything I want on it, and bypass their app store? Why can't I get that android magazine any time I want?
The answer, of course, is because someone wants to be able to control what I do with a device I paid for, and make sure I don't get any news about any competitor's products, because then I might not be so content in the walled garden. I can install whatever I want on my android phone, I can install whatever I want on my webOS phone, why can't I on my iphone?
If Apple wants to control the App Store, more power to them. As long as they restrict you from installing apps from elsewhere, though, they are engaging in anti-competitive and illegal business practices when they restrict things like this.
And you let me know the next time you are on Alaskan, and find that they cut out magazine articles about Southwest from all magazines on board. Dumbass.
This isn't and ad, it isn't a flier, its a MAGAZINE, containing content. Are you suggesting that you shouldn't be able to read iTunes for Idiots on your Windows 7 machine, or a book on Cocoa programming on your Nook running Android?
This isn't someone choosing not to allow an app, this is censorship more than anything. This is Apple denying any news of their competitors from ending up on their products. Which is interesting, since they aren't Apple's products at all, they are YOURS, you paid for it.
This is certain to run afoul of anti-trust/unfair business practice laws, should someone choose to push the issue. As long as they set themselves up to be the sole supplier of applications for their platform, they hold a monopoly, and exerting it in such a way is wrong. This is fundamentally the same as the Windows/Internet Explorer lockdown, though even in that case, Microsoft held a high percentage of the market, but did not restrict you from installing someone else's product.
Not being a profit or not being commercial in nature is not a qualifier for infringement or fair use.
Absolutely right, further profit isn't a qualifier for infringement. Damage to the marketability of the original is. They have to prove 1) that the 'product' was damaged materially by the infringement, and 2) that the copying didn't qualify for one of the other fair use exemptions, THEN it qualifies as an infringement. Since they do not resell the articles, do not make ad revenue on web hits for the article, and receive the copyright from the newspaper in exchange for a license (but apparently no other monetary consideration, since the newspaper is working with Righthaven in this scheme), I would like to know how they can prove damage. If the one copying can prove they had no motive to profit, it didn't reduce profit of the original, and that they posted the article for educational reasons, to refute or criticize, to parody, or any of the other approved exemptions, then copying even the whole article is NOT an infringement.
They had one of these suits thrown out already. In that case it was ruled an obvious case of fair use. Several cases have been settled out of court, how many of those were obvious cases of fair use, but not pursued because the accused could not afford to fight the case in court? That is what I mean by copyright infringement for profit. The only way Righthaven makes money is by winning lawsuits against violators, or getting them to settle to avoid a trial. That is their only purpose for existing. They do not create content, do not truly license content, or do anything else to bring in revenue except sue.
And the ritual is now complete, since in addition to all of the above, we have added the "Guy who hasn't read any of what is going on, recites some statistics he thinks are humorous that dismiss everything, and adds nothing to the conversation or, well, the world."
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you think the government doesn't already have that power? That's my point. You are saying we can't regulate corporate control of the internet because that means giving the power to the government... except that the government already can. All we do is lose MORE control to corporations.
Uhm... except that they weren't. The "internet" as we know it was funded first by DARPA, then the NSF, both taxpayer funded organizations. Those companies were PAID to build the internet, with our money. They continue to get grants and funding to increase speeds, lower costs, and provide wider and better services, but then complain that they just can't possibly get by making only a billion dollars a year in profit, they need some help... AGAIN.
Uhm, can you please tell me how this is anywhere near a meaningful analogy? Net neutrality wouldn't require Ford to give out pamphlets on GM cars, it would prevent Ford from buying the roads and then charging me again, in addition to the taxes already collected from me for the roads, for driving a GM car.
It sure seems to me that they can interfere all they want now, and make any sort of craptacular censorship regulations they want. All without net neutrality being an issue. So how then does preventing corporations from controlling things mean the government automatically does, or doesn't? By conflating these two entirely separate issues, you create a false sense of equality and causality, where none exist. We have already seen that the government can pass laws to censor what you can find on the net, and they did it under current conditions. Having 'net neutrality' and packet equivalence for any traffic has no bearing on that issue at all.
Except it isn't, since Wal-mart artificially deflates the cost of goods it sells by externalizing costs, it removes itself from anything resembling a 'free' market. A free market *requires* all costs be internalized. This is never going to happen.
It comes down to this: Google pays their ISP for the bits they send. I pay my ISP for the bits I request. If I happen to request them from Google, my ISP now says Google should have to pay them to deliver it, despite the fact that I *already* paid them to receive them, no matter where they came from.
As we look on things right now, Comcast already has a phone offering, a TV offering, and a net offering. They have their own streaming movie service that no one uses because it sucks. Without net neutrality, they can choose to block Netflix packets completely, or slow them to the point where they might as well be blocked, while their movie service just hums along. How long does it take until this circumvents the "free market" and the will of the people, by making Comcast's movie service more popular than Netflix, not because of content, or value, but simply artificially enhanced usability? How long til Netflix dies, because every single ISP in the country slows them down in favor of their own service, which gets priority traffic? How does that constitute a "free market" at all? Especially when Comcast can offer their service at a loss, undercutting what Netflix can offer? How is that the best company coming out ahead?
This becomes even more worrisome now that Comcast is buying NBC. We now have content provider and content delivery in one. How long until they start charging based on the origin of the content, not just its delivery? Will NBC produced shows, movies, and content be delivered cheaper and faster, while everyone else's are slowed down, unless they pay up?
The argument is usually made that people can just "switch providers, if they don't like what they do", but for a vast majority of Americans, that either isn't possible, or isn't viable. I have exactly two choices where I am, Comcast or Verizon. The Verizon service is... flaky, which is being generous. It shouldn't even qualify as "broadband". So my choice is Comcast. Oh, and thanks to clever lobbying on the part of Comcast, cable franchises in my state are set at the state level, meaning I can no longer even petition my local government for a change, nor vote for anything different.
I also like the argument put forward by some that we could just "do without broadband". Yes, I am sure we could, if we wanted to give up our chance for a real future. As more government functions and services are placed online, more people go to school online, or do their jobs online, a good high speed connection is not just desirable but required.
This isn't a "peering" agreement, because Comcast and Level3 are in no way peers. Comcast will always be a 'last mile' provider, not a backbone provider. That means that near EVERYONE sends more data to them than they receive. So everyone should have to pay Comcast an extra fee to carry their traffic? Even after I already paid for it?
I request bits. Comcast has agreed to provide me those bits at a certain cost. They already collected the cost of handling those bits. Now they want more to handle those bits, because I actually use what I pay for? Given that Comcast made near 3.5 billion dollars last year, and puts a miniscule fraction of their earnings back into upgrades to their system, I find it hard to cry for them. They are following every other American business down the 'take what we can now, reinvestment for the future be damned' approach. Lets not forget, taxpayer money was already given to backbone providers to increase bandwidth, most of it disappeared into stock dividends with little spent on infrastructure.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how accepting the traffic I asked for, and pay them to provide, puts Comcast in a "bad situation". If they couldn't handle 16mbps streams to each of their customers, then they shouldn't be CHARGING for 16mbps streams. These old agreements are basically crap. Both sides already pay for their bandwidth. Comcast just wants to collect again. Its that simple. They sold connections to each and every customer with a bandwidth expectation attached. They even charge in tiers, you can get 5mbps for much less than 16mbps. That would seem to imply that should I pay for that full 16, I get it, and they agree to provide it, not charge someone else for the bandwidth they already charged me for.
Trucks in the other state (Level3) are coming into our state, where I prepaid the toll with the toll booth operator (Comcast) because I wanted that delivery. I already paid the $9.99 for unlimited toll passes, and now the toll booth operator wants to charge the truck AGAIN as it passes through. The toll for that truck has already been paid at both ends, but now the toll booth operator threatens to hold that truck up if the truck doesn't pay again.
They advertised that I could stream movies, music, and anything else at blindingly fast speeds, and now that I actually want to do that, they claim they can't do it? They need more money to upgrade their service? Haven't I been paying for that service all along? It sounds to me like someone owes me a rather large refund for service I paid for that they were not able to provide.
Just because they had an agreement with another CDN doesn't keep this from being a net neutrality issue.
I pay Comcast for a 16mbps connection. I expect to be able to use that. Further, I expect to be able to use that for whatever bits I choose. A Netflix stream uses only a fraction of that, meaning I am well within what I have paid for.
The same is true on the other end. Level3 gets paid by Netflix for the bits going out, and Level3 pays backbone providers. Everyone in the transaction is already getting paid for the traffic being carried.
Comcast wants paid for traffic coming in from Level3, but its already been paid for that traffic...BY ME. They then threaten to cut off a particular service if they do not get their payment. That makes this exactly a net neutrality issue.
So a company that produces more than one magazine submits a bunch of apps, and only the one that deals with a competitor to Apple gets rejected... and somehow that means they submitted it just to get rejected? An interesting notion, given that their other apps appear in the App Store, it was only this particular one that got rejected. Sounds like you don't have all the facts.
Now if we could talk about what this issue is really about, great. Since what is being blocked is not an ADVERTISEMENT, its a magazine. Now, if your app appeared in a magazine, say "iPhone Developer", and Google blocked it from appearing in the Android Market, is that wrong? Yes. Just as its wrong for Apple to block a magazine about a competitor from theirs. This isn't about advertising, its about content. Oh, and by the way, a rather large number of the ads I get in my ad-supported android apps are for... iPhone products.
Actually, it would be more like stocking the BestBuy catalog in the magazine section at Wal-Mart.
Actually no, it would be more like stocking "Mac developer" magazine at Wal-Mart, or even Barnes and Noble, which in fact they DO. They sell a rather large selection of Apple based magazine content at B&N. Amazon sells books about the Nook, B&N sells books about the Kindle. This is a magazine they blocked, you know, CONTENT.
I would think the question is, why am I forced to limit my selections to the App Store? It is my phone, right? I paid for it. I own it. Its mine. Why can't I install anything I want on it, and bypass their app store? Why can't I get that android magazine any time I want?
The answer, of course, is because someone wants to be able to control what I do with a device I paid for, and make sure I don't get any news about any competitor's products, because then I might not be so content in the walled garden. I can install whatever I want on my android phone, I can install whatever I want on my webOS phone, why can't I on my iphone?
If Apple wants to control the App Store, more power to them. As long as they restrict you from installing apps from elsewhere, though, they are engaging in anti-competitive and illegal business practices when they restrict things like this.
And you let me know the next time you are on Alaskan, and find that they cut out magazine articles about Southwest from all magazines on board. Dumbass. This isn't and ad, it isn't a flier, its a MAGAZINE, containing content. Are you suggesting that you shouldn't be able to read iTunes for Idiots on your Windows 7 machine, or a book on Cocoa programming on your Nook running Android? This isn't someone choosing not to allow an app, this is censorship more than anything. This is Apple denying any news of their competitors from ending up on their products. Which is interesting, since they aren't Apple's products at all, they are YOURS, you paid for it. This is certain to run afoul of anti-trust/unfair business practice laws, should someone choose to push the issue. As long as they set themselves up to be the sole supplier of applications for their platform, they hold a monopoly, and exerting it in such a way is wrong. This is fundamentally the same as the Windows/Internet Explorer lockdown, though even in that case, Microsoft held a high percentage of the market, but did not restrict you from installing someone else's product.
Not being a profit or not being commercial in nature is not a qualifier for infringement or fair use.
Absolutely right, further profit isn't a qualifier for infringement. Damage to the marketability of the original is. They have to prove 1) that the 'product' was damaged materially by the infringement, and 2) that the copying didn't qualify for one of the other fair use exemptions, THEN it qualifies as an infringement. Since they do not resell the articles, do not make ad revenue on web hits for the article, and receive the copyright from the newspaper in exchange for a license (but apparently no other monetary consideration, since the newspaper is working with Righthaven in this scheme), I would like to know how they can prove damage. If the one copying can prove they had no motive to profit, it didn't reduce profit of the original, and that they posted the article for educational reasons, to refute or criticize, to parody, or any of the other approved exemptions, then copying even the whole article is NOT an infringement. They had one of these suits thrown out already. In that case it was ruled an obvious case of fair use. Several cases have been settled out of court, how many of those were obvious cases of fair use, but not pursued because the accused could not afford to fight the case in court? That is what I mean by copyright infringement for profit. The only way Righthaven makes money is by winning lawsuits against violators, or getting them to settle to avoid a trial. That is their only purpose for existing. They do not create content, do not truly license content, or do anything else to bring in revenue except sue.
And the ritual is now complete, since in addition to all of the above, we have added the "Guy who hasn't read any of what is going on, recites some statistics he thinks are humorous that dismiss everything, and adds nothing to the conversation or, well, the world."