Feeding the omelet to a chicken would result in Cannibal Chickens - that's Just Wrong. Besides, it would probably lead to Zombie Cannibal Chickens in the near future, and we have enough existential risks to worry about already.
"The principle that "net neutrality" advocates seem to ignore is that competition in the creation of new networks is as important as competition in the goods and services that get sold over existing networks."
If ISPs want to create "new networks" with prioritized services and traffic shaping, then go for it. Create a seperate network and do whatever you want with it. Choose what services you'll support; create different tiers of performance; prioritize your IPTV traffic. Make it like Cable 2.0 where you decide what the content is.
Just don't call it the Internet.
Sometimes, just sometimes, there is need for regulation.
Let's examine this point-by-point:
(1) The harm is not hypothetical. There are numerous incidents of ISPs blocking or degrading traffic of competing services. And, although I'm happy you have all the bandwidth you want, that's likely to change. Available bandwidth will be reduced as telcos move into the IPTV business. One or two high defintion channels will eat the majority of the capacity to your home.
(2) You said it yourself - companies already pay for ISPs. Why should they have to pay again?
(3) Tiered pricing will lower subscription costs? Do you really believe that? Do you think the telcos just want move their source of income from consumers to content providers? No, they want both to pay. You say tiered pricing should be for private industry to decide. Should private industry be allowed to determine who I connect to, or how well a providers service will work? Network neutrality is not giving control of the Internet to the government; it's keeping control in the hands of consumers. Net neutrality simply returns things to the status quo before a flawed decision by the FCC removed the protection that has been in place since its beginning. This principle has endured through decades of amazing technological change. It will NOT "be obsolete on the day it was passed."
(4) Don't renew my contract if I hate it? Only 53% of Americans have at least two choices in broadband providers - the rest have one or none, and both the telcos and cable companies have stated their intentions. There is no choice except to do without, and in today's world that's not a reasonable option.
(5) Banning the blocking or restricting of applications ISPs don't like, such as P2P, VOIP, streaming video from sites they don't own, etc. is part of net neutrality. ISPs should act as common carriers, not gatekeepers. CONSUMERS should decide how they want to use the bandwith they pay for, not ISPs.
(6) I understand the concern about regulation, but this simply writes into law the principles that have made the Internet a driving force for innovation. It corrects a flawed policy decision of the FCC.
(7) The battle has been lost. Sure, you're provided a ton of bandwidth, but God forbid you actually want to USE the bandwidth you've paid for. Verizon's EULA's are particularly amusing.
(8) Arrogance to think that regulation is sometimes necessary? How's this for arrogance? Edward Whitacre of AT&T: "Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?" Well, Ed - they ain't YOUR pipes. We, your customers are paying for them.
(9) Here we agree. Net neutrality would not be an issue if there were true competion because consumers would not stand for it. However, in the real world, most people do not have the option to choose another carrier. AT&T and others understand this, and are trying to use this to their advantage.
My first computer was an Atari 800 maxed out with the external serial/parallel interface box, floppy drive, cassette tape drive and 300 baud modem. An Epson MX-80 with a graphics chip upgrade rounded out my rig.
Throw in the ability to use donated computer cycles to do the sequencing (like SETI@home), and this may be doable sooner rather than later; however the potential for the abuse of this type of personal information is at least as great as any benefits and it should not be done.
Although the point that climate change is unlikely to doom humanity is valid, I disagree that the real danger are economic dangers. You say "first world nations are not going to starve" and that may be right, but only at the expense of others. Nations will arm themselves to both secure and obtain dwindling resources for their population. Some would say this is already happening in Ethiopia and Sudan due to changes in north African climate. I think abrupt climate change will inevitably bring war and political instability, and that this represents the greatest threat from climate change.
It's going to be a bumpy ride.
http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/walrus.htm
There is definitely military potential, since DARPA already has a project based on the same concepts.
"The Walrus program will develop and evaluate a very large airlift vehicle concept that is designed to control lift in all stages of air or ground operations including off-loading of payload without taking onboard ballast other than air. Unlike earlier generation airships it will generate lift through a combination of aerodynamics, thrust vectoring and gas buoyancy generation and management and for much of the time, it will fly heavier than air."
Slashdot Mirror
Feeding the omelet to a chicken would result in Cannibal Chickens - that's Just Wrong. Besides, it would probably lead to Zombie Cannibal Chickens in the near future, and we have enough existential risks to worry about already.
"The principle that "net neutrality" advocates seem to ignore is that competition in the creation of new networks is as important as competition in the goods and services that get sold over existing networks." If ISPs want to create "new networks" with prioritized services and traffic shaping, then go for it. Create a seperate network and do whatever you want with it. Choose what services you'll support; create different tiers of performance; prioritize your IPTV traffic. Make it like Cable 2.0 where you decide what the content is. Just don't call it the Internet.
Sometimes, just sometimes, there is need for regulation.
Let's examine this point-by-point:
(1) The harm is not hypothetical. There are numerous incidents of ISPs blocking or degrading traffic of competing services. And, although I'm happy you have all the bandwidth you want, that's likely to change. Available bandwidth will be reduced as telcos move into the IPTV business. One or two high defintion channels will eat the majority of the capacity to your home.
(2) You said it yourself - companies already pay for ISPs. Why should they have to pay again?
(3) Tiered pricing will lower subscription costs? Do you really believe that? Do you think the telcos just want move their source of income from consumers to content providers? No, they want both to pay. You say tiered pricing should be for private industry to decide. Should private industry be allowed to determine who I connect to, or how well a providers service will work? Network neutrality is not giving control of the Internet to the government; it's keeping control in the hands of consumers. Net neutrality simply returns things to the status quo before a flawed decision by the FCC removed the protection that has been in place since its beginning. This principle has endured through decades of amazing technological change. It will NOT "be obsolete on the day it was passed."
(4) Don't renew my contract if I hate it? Only 53% of Americans have at least two choices in broadband providers - the rest have one or none, and both the telcos and cable companies have stated their intentions. There is no choice except to do without, and in today's world that's not a reasonable option.
(5) Banning the blocking or restricting of applications ISPs don't like, such as P2P, VOIP, streaming video from sites they don't own, etc. is part of net neutrality. ISPs should act as common carriers, not gatekeepers. CONSUMERS should decide how they want to use the bandwith they pay for, not ISPs.
(6) I understand the concern about regulation, but this simply writes into law the principles that have made the Internet a driving force for innovation. It corrects a flawed policy decision of the FCC.
(7) The battle has been lost. Sure, you're provided a ton of bandwidth, but God forbid you actually want to USE the bandwidth you've paid for. Verizon's EULA's are particularly amusing.
(8) Arrogance to think that regulation is sometimes necessary? How's this for arrogance? Edward Whitacre of AT&T: "Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?" Well, Ed - they ain't YOUR pipes. We, your customers are paying for them.
(9) Here we agree. Net neutrality would not be an issue if there were true competion because consumers would not stand for it. However, in the real world, most people do not have the option to choose another carrier. AT&T and others understand this, and are trying to use this to their advantage.
My first computer was an Atari 800 maxed out with the external serial/parallel interface box, floppy drive, cassette tape drive and 300 baud modem. An Epson MX-80 with a graphics chip upgrade rounded out my rig.
Throw in the ability to use donated computer cycles to do the sequencing (like SETI@home), and this may be doable sooner rather than later; however the potential for the abuse of this type of personal information is at least as great as any benefits and it should not be done.
Although the point that climate change is unlikely to doom humanity is valid, I disagree that the real danger are economic dangers. You say "first world nations are not going to starve" and that may be right, but only at the expense of others. Nations will arm themselves to both secure and obtain dwindling resources for their population. Some would say this is already happening in Ethiopia and Sudan due to changes in north African climate. I think abrupt climate change will inevitably bring war and political instability, and that this represents the greatest threat from climate change. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/walrus.htm There is definitely military potential, since DARPA already has a project based on the same concepts. "The Walrus program will develop and evaluate a very large airlift vehicle concept that is designed to control lift in all stages of air or ground operations including off-loading of payload without taking onboard ballast other than air. Unlike earlier generation airships it will generate lift through a combination of aerodynamics, thrust vectoring and gas buoyancy generation and management and for much of the time, it will fly heavier than air."