It may initially seem that introducing federal regulation for the purpose of preserving net neutrality would effectively mean, 'regulating the Internet'.
Not doing so will result in more regulation however.
Recently, the article below was posted on Slashdot. It describes the situation that a servide provider, wishing to serve customers over the cellular network,
would find themselves in:
Regulations are regarded with suspicion by economists, because regulations force providers to jump through hoops and work their way through red-tape
in order to provide their service to customers. There is little *government* regulation of cellular network services,
however, the cellular network companies themselves have introduced *plenty* of regulation to make up for that. In order to have access to customers, a potential service
provider must comply to all the regulations that each different network provider stipulates (no chat services, for one network, no games on another for example),
in addition to paying huge sums of money to even connect to the system, often some 10 times the amount that is required to operate a web service on the Internet.
The regulation issue is a nightmare as the rules and regulations are different for each network; in order to operate a service on the cellular system,
you must comply with several different sets of network regulations at the same time.
Information is one of the most valuable commodities in the 21st century. The Internet is a vital transport network for information, just as the road network
is a vital transport network for physical goods. The anti-net-neutrality lobby has stated that the changes to the Internet proposed by the communications companies
are somewhat similar building new toll-roads. Toll-roads can work well, however, the comparison is flawed. The Internet is already akin to a toll-road system;
a high bandwidth Internet connection costs more than a low bandwidth one, just as driving an articulated lorry on some toll-roads costs more than driving a
car (due to increased wear and tear on the road). Removing net-neutrality however, is more akin to determining the road toll based on the destination of the
vehicle; you would pay less to drive to Wal-mart than to a small independent store, even though the distance to either is similar. Alternatively, going to the
independent store could mean being forced to drive on a dirt track as opposed to a highway, it could also mean being prevented from going to the independent
store at all; you would be re-directed to Walmart. This would all be dependent upon which company provides your 'road-service'.
If net neutrality is not going to be enforced legally, then maybe it's time to start
blocking internet providers who behave in such a destructive fashion.
Some comments below this one indicate that CVD (chemical vapour deposition) is used to grow the nanotubes.
A link in the article to some information about a British effort along the same lines indicates that
they grow the carbon nanotubes to build the basic hair-like structure. After this, they deposit a layer
of conductive material (the first plate) onto the nanotubes. After this, a layer of dielectric (insulating
material) is deposited. Finally, another layer of conductive material (the second plate) is deposited.
This is just what I have picked up.
Please note, I am not an electrical engineer or a physicist.
I just code 3D modelling software (http://gsculpt.sf.net/) for fun.
You should check out the case of Chip Salzenberg. http://geeksunite.org/ Chip discovered some unpleasant goings on in his company, and he wrote to the CEO about it. The company then claimed that he had stolen company code (evidence: CVS logs stated that he had downloaded more code than he had uploaded, which is typical for programming), and had the police raid his house and confiscate all his computers. The whistleblower laws don't seem to be doing a very good job of protecting him. So here is the problem: If you speak to the company management ("the way you're supposed to"), they may turn around and slap you in order to discredit you before you can cause any damage, and to punish you for your actions. If you speak to the media, the company may turn around and slap you in order to punish you for your actions. What are you supposed to do? There are only two ways out. 1. Leave. In the case of the Diebold whistleblower, this is NOT in the public interest. 2. Get in on it and profit. Lets face the facts, quite a few of the Enron/Worldcom co-conspirators made a lot of money out of their scam and will get away with it. Its up to the people of the USA to decide which behaviour they wish to encourage.
It isn't a perfect solution. However, were such a solution to be used, it would increase the demand for alternative providers to the point where competition would be viable.
I think that it is time to start returning the favour to the ISPs that engage in these unsavoury practices. I would propose making normally free web services (services similar to Slashdot, Reddit, Digg, etc) unavailable to customers who connect to the Internet through these ISPs (SBC / Comcast, etc), or available only as a payed-for subscription service. This may cause customers who value these services to switch to more reasonable internet providers, thus ensuring a steady supply of business for them. Given the size of the organisations who intend to balkanise the Internet, fighting them head on would be difficult. Perhaps the best way to handle in this situation is to ensure that our side has a say in how this is done.
Slashdot Mirror
It may initially seem that introducing federal regulation for the purpose of preserving net neutrality would effectively mean, 'regulating the Internet'. Not doing so will result in more regulation however.
Recently, the article below was posted on Slashdot. It describes the situation that a servide provider, wishing to serve customers over the cellular network, would find themselves in:
http://business.newsforge.com/business/06/07/19/20 6209.shtml?tid=138&tid=3
Regulations are regarded with suspicion by economists, because regulations force providers to jump through hoops and work their way through red-tape in order to provide their service to customers. There is little *government* regulation of cellular network services, however, the cellular network companies themselves have introduced *plenty* of regulation to make up for that. In order to have access to customers, a potential service provider must comply to all the regulations that each different network provider stipulates (no chat services, for one network, no games on another for example), in addition to paying huge sums of money to even connect to the system, often some 10 times the amount that is required to operate a web service on the Internet. The regulation issue is a nightmare as the rules and regulations are different for each network; in order to operate a service on the cellular system, you must comply with several different sets of network regulations at the same time.
Information is one of the most valuable commodities in the 21st century. The Internet is a vital transport network for information, just as the road network is a vital transport network for physical goods. The anti-net-neutrality lobby has stated that the changes to the Internet proposed by the communications companies are somewhat similar building new toll-roads. Toll-roads can work well, however, the comparison is flawed. The Internet is already akin to a toll-road system; a high bandwidth Internet connection costs more than a low bandwidth one, just as driving an articulated lorry on some toll-roads costs more than driving a car (due to increased wear and tear on the road). Removing net-neutrality however, is more akin to determining the road toll based on the destination of the vehicle; you would pay less to drive to Wal-mart than to a small independent store, even though the distance to either is similar. Alternatively, going to the independent store could mean being forced to drive on a dirt track as opposed to a highway, it could also mean being prevented from going to the independent store at all; you would be re-directed to Walmart. This would all be dependent upon which company provides your 'road-service'.
Cheers
Brittix
If net neutrality is not going to be enforced legally, then maybe it's time to start blocking internet providers who behave in such a destructive fashion.
Some comments below this one indicate that CVD (chemical vapour deposition) is used to grow the nanotubes. A link in the article to some information about a British effort along the same lines indicates that they grow the carbon nanotubes to build the basic hair-like structure. After this, they deposit a layer of conductive material (the first plate) onto the nanotubes. After this, a layer of dielectric (insulating material) is deposited. Finally, another layer of conductive material (the second plate) is deposited.
This is just what I have picked up.
Please note, I am not an electrical engineer or a physicist.
I just code 3D modelling software (http://gsculpt.sf.net/) for fun.
You should check out the case of Chip Salzenberg. http://geeksunite.org/
Chip discovered some unpleasant goings on in his company, and he wrote to the CEO about it. The company then claimed that he had stolen company code (evidence: CVS logs stated that he had downloaded more code than he had uploaded, which is typical for programming), and had the police raid his house and confiscate all his computers. The whistleblower laws don't seem to be doing a very good job of protecting him.
So here is the problem:
If you speak to the company management ("the way you're supposed to"), they may turn around and slap you in order to discredit you before you can cause any damage, and to punish you for your actions.
If you speak to the media, the company may turn around and slap you in order to punish you for your actions.
What are you supposed to do?
There are only two ways out.
1. Leave. In the case of the Diebold whistleblower, this is NOT in the public interest.
2. Get in on it and profit. Lets face the facts, quite a few of the Enron/Worldcom co-conspirators made a lot of money out of their scam and will get away with it.
Its up to the people of the USA to decide which behaviour they wish to encourage.
It isn't a perfect solution.
However, were such a solution to be used, it would increase the demand for alternative providers to the point where competition would be viable.
- Brittix
I think that it is time to start returning the favour to the ISPs that engage in these unsavoury practices.
I would propose making normally free web services (services similar to Slashdot, Reddit, Digg, etc) unavailable to customers who connect to the Internet through these ISPs (SBC / Comcast, etc), or available only as a payed-for subscription service.
This may cause customers who value these services to switch to more reasonable internet providers, thus ensuring a steady supply of business for them.
Given the size of the organisations who intend to balkanise the Internet, fighting them head on would be difficult. Perhaps the best way to handle in this situation is to ensure that our side has a say in how this is done.
- Brittix
I sensed a great disturbance in the force..... It was as if 30 million Canadians had lost their dignity all at once.