FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby The Reaper » Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:05 am UTC

Duplicate threads merged. Sorry about the post-order mixup.

~CM


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125329467451823485.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/technolo ... 9A20090918
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postte ... at_pr.html
Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, plans to propose a new so-called net neutrality rule Monday that could prevent telecommunications, cable and wireless companies from blocking Internet applications, according to sources at the agency.

Genachowski will discuss the rules Monday during a keynote speech at The Brookings Institute. He isn't expected to drill into many details, but the proposal will specifically be for an additional guideline on how operators like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast can control what goes on their networks. That additional guideline would prevent the operators from discriminating, or act as gatekeepers, of Web content and services.

The guidelines in place today have been criticized by applications developers like Google and public interest groups for not going far enough to clarify what is defined as discriminatory behavior. Comcast is fighting in federal court an FCC ruling that it violated the guidelines by blocking a video application last year. AT&T and Verizon have said existing rules are sufficient, and more regulation is unnecessary. However, they have also said they wouldn't fight against an additional guideline that focuses on discriminatory behavior.

The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because details of the new regulations haven't been officially announced.

The new rule would be the first bold move by Genachowski, who served as President Obama's technology advisor during the campaign and transition. The rule could upset wireless, telecom and cable operators who have fought against regulations that would give them less control over traffic that runs on their networks. They argue that they need to maintain flexibility to manage traffic to ensure some applications don't take up too much bandwidth and make Web access slower for some users.

The agency is expected to review what traffic management is reasonable and what practices are discriminatory. The guidelines are known as "principals" at the agency, which some public interest groups have sought to codify so that they would clearly be enforceable by the agency.

The debate over net neutrality encompasses a wide variety of technology companies. Some -- like Google -- create applications for the Web and want customers to have easy access to their wares. Network owners, however, find themselves increasing on the defensive; their traditional business of providing phone and television has been challenged by upstarts providing much of the same content on the Web.

Such network operators have drawn scrutiny of late.

Google revealed Friday in letters to the FCC that Apple rejected its voice service and a mapping service on the popular iPhone and Internet voice service Skype has fought for rules that would prevent companies like AT&T from keeping its service off its wireless 3G network. The FCC asked AT&T, Apple and Google to respond to questions about allegations that Google Voice was blocked. Apple denies it rejected the application, saying it is still evaluating whether to permit it on the iPhone. And it is unclear whether the FCC can regulate the manufacturers of wireless phones, which some argue are part of wireless networks and others say are separate from networks and not under the jurisdiction of the agency.

Consumer interest groups have pushed for new rules and key lawmakers Thursday ratcheted up the debate when Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee said he would co-author a net neutrality bill with Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eschoo (D-Calif.).

"If the commission moves forward on network neutrality, it will achieve the president's signature tech policy agenda item," said Ben Scott, director of policy at public interest group Free Press. "And it's a firm move to protect the open Internet for consumers and producers of content in a competitive marketplace of speech and commerce."


Fuck.
Yes.
.

User avatar
Internetmeme
Posts: 1405
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:16 pm UTC
Location: South Carolina, USA

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby Internetmeme » Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:06 am UTC

For the first time ever:
<3 FCC
Spoiler:

User avatar
The Utilitarian
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:26 am UTC
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby The Utilitarian » Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:36 am UTC

Well that's comforting. At its lowest point the Net Neutrality discussion was really chilling when you considered the implications of the alternative.

Oh well, at least we got "The Tubes" out of it.
Watch your back, shoot straight, conserve ammo, and never, EVER cut a deal with a dragon.
Valar morghulis; valar dohaeris.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby netcrusher88 » Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:26 am UTC

Referring to the FCC chairman as "communications czar" and calling this a socialist policy that will overload the series of tubes and destroy the Internet as we know it in 3...2...
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
scrovak
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:54 pm UTC
Location: Harford County, MD [USA]
Contact:

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby scrovak » Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:32 am UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:Referring to the FCC chairman as "communications czar" and calling this a socialist policy that will overload the series of tubes and destroy the Internet as we know it in 3...2...


Really? I find that it's more like preventing the establishment of socialistic practices by companies like Comcast and AT&T, who could effectively control what you see and censor what you do on the internet without this regulation.
MrGee wrote:I would never eat a person. Have you seen the conditions they're raised in?
kapojinha wrote:You're amazing, which is why I'm going to marry you.

Angua wrote:coordinated baby attacks

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby netcrusher88 » Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:34 am UTC

Yeah, but they're not government, so asshattery isn't socialism, it's good American capitalism.

Yes, that's bullshit. Guess what? So is most screaming about socialism.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:55 am UTC

I always saw this as one of those gray areas. The more freely goods can move, the healthier an economy becomes. One of the most important goods is information. Restricting the flow of information restricts the health of a capitalistic system.

User avatar
scrovak
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:54 pm UTC
Location: Harford County, MD [USA]
Contact:

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby scrovak » Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:56 am UTC

It's corporate/economic socialism. Socialism doesn't refer strictly to a government, but rather to a governing body. By allowing these companies to continue their practice of said asshatery, we're silently consenting to allow them to create a governing body our country, effectively subverting the existing governing body's control. And that, my friend, is a near text-book example of socialism.
MrGee wrote:I would never eat a person. Have you seen the conditions they're raised in?
kapojinha wrote:You're amazing, which is why I'm going to marry you.

Angua wrote:coordinated baby attacks

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:59 am UTC

scrovak wrote:It's corporate/economic socialism. Socialism doesn't refer strictly to a government, but rather to a governing body. By allowing these companies to continue their practice of said asshatery, we're silently consenting to allow them to create a governing body our country, effectively subverting the existing governing body's control. And that, my friend, is a near text-book example of socialism.
Although I agree with the sentiment that restricting the flow of communication restricts the health of a capitalistic economy, I think you have your definitions mixed up here. I'm no expert on socialism versus capitalism, but I'm pretty sure that a business providing you with a service on their own terms is very capitalistic.

There's nothing socialistic about a phone company deciding they're only going to let you use their service to call other people who use their service (rather than competing phone companies). There's nothing socialistic about an internet provider deciding they're only going to let you visit the websites that use their service (rather than competing internet providers). That's pure, textbook capitalism.

User avatar
scrovak
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:54 pm UTC
Location: Harford County, MD [USA]
Contact:

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby scrovak » Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:13 am UTC

True, if it's part of a business strategy, or to help them increase their profit margin.

However, according to Comcast, they are blocking particular sites, not because they're losing money, but so other customers can visit sites at the same speed. Reduce what they do so they can all do it at the same quality? That's the socialism I was pulling out of it...

***Edit***
It seems like the FCC's backing of this goes along with protecting citizens' freedom to view what they want on the internet, regardless what it is or how it effect's the company.
MrGee wrote:I would never eat a person. Have you seen the conditions they're raised in?
kapojinha wrote:You're amazing, which is why I'm going to marry you.

Angua wrote:coordinated baby attacks

Quenouille
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:34 am UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby Quenouille » Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:02 am UTC

scrovak wrote:***Edit***
It seems like the FCC's backing of this goes along with protecting citizens' freedom to view what they want on the internet, regardless what it is or how it effect's the company.


Are you equating fighting for civil liberties with fighting against socialism? Perhaps I'm reading this wrong.

To spin your example differently, it's also the government telling a company they can't run the company like they would like to. For the People.

With a broad enough definition, everything falls under ''socialism''. How about we just consider this a good move in the direction of privacy rights and move on?

User avatar
scrovak
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:54 pm UTC
Location: Harford County, MD [USA]
Contact:

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby scrovak » Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:43 am UTC

Quenouille wrote:How about we just consider this a good move in the direction of privacy rights and move on?

Ok by me!
MrGee wrote:I would never eat a person. Have you seen the conditions they're raised in?
kapojinha wrote:You're amazing, which is why I'm going to marry you.

Angua wrote:coordinated baby attacks

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby Aetius » Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:26 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Although I agree with the sentiment that restricting the flow of communication restricts the health of a capitalistic economy, I think you have your definitions mixed up here. I'm no expert on socialism versus capitalism, but I'm pretty sure that a business providing you with a service on their own terms is very capitalistic.

There's nothing socialistic about a phone company deciding they're only going to let you use their service to call other people who use their service (rather than competing phone companies). There's nothing socialistic about an internet provider deciding they're only going to let you visit the websites that use their service (rather than competing internet providers). That's pure, textbook capitalism.


It's not textbook capitalism because companies like Comcast rely, almost exclusively, on customer ignorance, barriers to entry, and complex telecommunications regulations to maintain their position. It's the exact reason Net Neutrality is required, because the ISP situation doesn't operate as it would in a true free market.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:27 pm UTC

Aetius wrote:It's not textbook capitalism because companies like Comcast rely, almost exclusively, on customer ignorance, barriers to entry, and complex telecommunications regulations to maintain their position. It's the exact reason Net Neutrality is required, because the ISP situation doesn't operate as it would in a true free market.
Beyond the complex telecommunication relations (and I don't see how those regulations pertain to denial of service), how is customer ignorance and other barriers to fair competition not capitalistic? As I understand it, capitalism isn't fair - it doesn't operate on the notion that every customer is well-informed or has access to the same resources.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby Telchar » Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:25 pm UTC

It does however operate on the assumption that if a company is offering a bad product, it creates an opportunity for entrepreneurs to start a business to compete, something that is prohibitive for any number of reasons in the telecommunications industry.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
scrovak
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:54 pm UTC
Location: Harford County, MD [USA]
Contact:

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby scrovak » Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:58 pm UTC

Agreed. Any cable company that doesn't already exist in relatively large numbers (in the U.S. at least) would have to rid ethrough hell on a winged unicorn to actually start up.
MrGee wrote:I would never eat a person. Have you seen the conditions they're raised in?
kapojinha wrote:You're amazing, which is why I'm going to marry you.

Angua wrote:coordinated baby attacks

Bright Shadows
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:56 pm UTC

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby Bright Shadows » Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:00 pm UTC

scrovak wrote:Agreed. Any cable company that doesn't already exist in relatively large numbers (in the U.S. at least) would have to rid ethrough hell on a winged unicorn to actually start up.

Incidentally, I might try at some point. Anyone got a unicorn?
Image

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby The Reaper » Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:14 pm UTC

Bright Shadows wrote:
scrovak wrote:Agreed. Any cable company that doesn't already exist in relatively large numbers (in the U.S. at least) would have to rid ethrough hell on a winged unicorn to actually start up.

Incidentally, I might try at some point. Anyone got a unicorn?

Yea, but I'm saving it for tonight's BBQ.

User avatar
scrovak
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:54 pm UTC
Location: Harford County, MD [USA]
Contact:

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby scrovak » Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:24 pm UTC

The Reaper wrote:
Bright Shadows wrote:
scrovak wrote:Agreed. Any cable company that doesn't already exist in relatively large numbers (in the U.S. at least) would have to rid ethrough hell on a winged unicorn to actually start up.

Incidentally, I might try at some point. Anyone got a unicorn?

Yea, but I'm saving it for tonight's BBQ.

Save me a drumstick, will ya?
MrGee wrote:I would never eat a person. Have you seen the conditions they're raised in?
kapojinha wrote:You're amazing, which is why I'm going to marry you.

Angua wrote:coordinated baby attacks

User avatar
PhoenixEnigma
Posts: 2303
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:11 am UTC
Location: Sasquatchawan, Canada
Contact:

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby PhoenixEnigma » Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:13 am UTC

This is a Good Thing. Not only because of the principals of net neutrality in itself, but because hopefully it will help with some of the advertising muck, too. Instead of 15mb/s peak but only for email and plain http, it might be 10mb/s peak for all things. Which is a step in the right direction, at least, even if the sustained speed is still really more like 5mb/s.
"Optimism, pessimism, fuck that; we're going to make it happen. As God is my bloody witness, I'm hell-bent on making it work." -Elon Musk
Shivahn wrote:I am a motherfucking sorceror.

User avatar
Galen
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:34 am UTC
Location: Korea

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby Galen » Sun Sep 20, 2009 1:55 am UTC

The article wrote:The guidelines are known as "principals" at the agency, which some public interest groups have sought to codify so that they would clearly be enforceable by the agency.


Because the Wall Street Journal refuses to admit the FCC has principles.
Last edited by Galen on Sun Sep 20, 2009 2:13 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Jahoclave wrote:It's not a matter of practicality. It's a matter of sticking it to France. We should have the fastest damn train on the planet. It doesn't matter if it goes from Utah to nowhere.

User avatar
Amarantha
Posts: 1638
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby Amarantha » Sun Sep 20, 2009 2:03 am UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:Referring to the FCC chairman as "communications czar"
How about Secretary of the Internet?

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Net Netrality: The me-first generation wins.

Postby Ixtellor » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:10 pm UTC

Merged.

~CM


FCC Chairman Proposes 'Net Neutrality' Rules

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1253540 ... TopStories


It would add to the FCC's four existing Internet principles a rule saying companies can't pick and choose among the legal content they serve up, as well as a rule saying providers must disclose how they manage their networks.

The rules would have to be approved by a majority of the board; the three Democrats on the panel support net neutrality.


Ixtellor

P.S. I have no position on net neutrality. Its just humorous to me, that the generation with the highest propensity to lie,cheat, and steal and still think its moral, would want this.
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
tzvibish
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: In ur officez, supportin ur desktopz
Contact:

Re: Net Netrality: The me-first generation wins.

Postby tzvibish » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:14 pm UTC

I don't think this generation is any worse than previous generations. I think the lying, cheating and stealing in previous generations wasn't glorified as much as it is today. This is probably the first generation where there is a movement to force the government into legalizing piracy (not that I don't agree). I don't think people are any better or worse, though.
Image
-Featuring the Comic Strip XKCD!

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Net Netrality: The me-first generation wins.

Postby The Reaper » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:41 pm UTC


User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Net Netrality: The me-first generation wins.

Postby Malice » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:42 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:P.S. I have no position on net neutrality. Its just humorous to me, that the generation with the highest propensity to lie,cheat, and steal and still think its moral, would want this.


If you actually have citations, I'd love to read them.

But really, Ixxy, net neutrality isn't a moral issue; it's a matter of whether we let internet providers fuck up their service (making it slower and much more frustrating to use) in order to make more profit. It has nothing to do with ideas of "fairness", except in the economic sense of allowing fair competition among sites.
Image

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Net Netrality: The me-first generation wins.

Postby Ixtellor » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:09 pm UTC

Malice wrote:If you actually have citations, I'd love to read them.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27983915/

Here is a sample.

Other findings from the survey:

Cheating in school is rampant and getting worse. Sixty-four percent of students cheated on a test in the past year and 38 percent did so two or more times, up from 60 percent and 35 percent in a 2006 survey.

Thirty-six percent said they used the Internet to plagiarize an assignment, up from 33 percent in 2004.

Forty-two percent said they sometimes lie to save money — 49 percent of the boys and 36 percent of the girls.

Despite such responses, 93 percent of the students said they were satisfied with their personal ethics and character, and 77 percent affirmed that "when it comes to doing what is right, I am better than most people I know."


Malice wrote:But really, Ixxy, net neutrality isn't a moral issue; it's a matter of whether we let internet providers fuck up their service (making it slower and much more frustrating to use) in order to make more profit. It has nothing to do with ideas of "fairness", except in the economic sense of allowing fair competition among sites.
.


I have no stance on the issue because I see both sides. I don't think its awful that internet service providers could charge more to people who use more bandwidth. There is no inalienable right to have high-speed internet provided to you by a private company. The only reason I have no position, is because the government makes it possible for them to provide highspeed internet, thus the government can dictate rules to them.

I don't want to fight about that issue, just thought I would tell you ... "You win!!"

Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: Net Netrality: The me-first generation wins.

Postby frezik » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:17 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27983915/


From that link:

Educators reacting to the findings questioned any suggestion that today's young people are less honest than previous generations, but several agreed that intensified pressures are prompting many students to cut corners.


(Emphasis mine)

Do you have links showing that this generation is particularly worse than earlier ones?
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: Net Netrality: The me-first generation wins.

Postby Aetius » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:28 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:I have no stance on the issue because I see both sides. I don't think its awful that internet service providers could charge more to people who use more bandwidth. There is no inalienable right to have high-speed internet provided to you by a private company. The only reason I have no position, is because the government makes it possible for them to provide highspeed internet, thus the government can dictate rules to them.


I'm not sure you're seeing either side. What you have posted is not what net neutrality is about.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Net Netrality: The me-first generation wins.

Postby The Reaper » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:36 pm UTC

Aetius wrote:
Ixtellor wrote:I have no stance on the issue because I see both sides. I don't think its awful that internet service providers could charge more to people who use more bandwidth. There is no inalienable right to have high-speed internet provided to you by a private company. The only reason I have no position, is because the government makes it possible for them to provide highspeed internet, thus the government can dictate rules to them.


I'm not sure you're seeing either side. What you have posted is not what net neutrality is about.

the argument about bandwidth, aside from providers wanting to be lazy about their dataflow is :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
Bret Swanson from the Wall Street Journal said that YouTube, MySpace and blogs are put at risk by net neutrality. Swanson says that YouTube streams as much data in three months as the world's radio, cable and broadcast television channels stream in one year, 75 petabytes. He argues that today’s networks are not remotely prepared to handle what he calls the "exaflood" (see exabytes). He argues that net neutrality would prevent broadband networks from being built, which would limit available bandwidth and thus endanger innovation.
I don't see how youtube endangers innovation, nor the necessity of a greater bandwidth endangers innovation. There was something that was "the mother of invention", as I recall....

I think the inalienable rights come into play under the "get what I paid for" rights, aka, if I pay for 7mbps, I should get 7mbps, almost all of the time, even if I've downloaded a 2gb file already.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Net Netrality: The me-first generation wins.

Postby Malice » Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:03 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:
Malice wrote:If you actually have citations, I'd love to read them.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27983915/


Do you have similar studies conducted for prior generations?
Image

Kizor
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: :noitacoL

Re: Net Netrality: The me-first generation wins.

Postby Kizor » Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:22 pm UTC

This does not seem like a sensible framing of the significance of net neutrality. Here's another that may or may not be better.
Image

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: Net Netrality: The me-first generation wins.

Postby frezik » Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:33 pm UTC

The Reaper wrote:the argument about bandwidth, aside from providers wanting to be lazy about their dataflow is :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
Bret Swanson from the Wall Street Journal said that YouTube, MySpace and blogs are put at risk by net neutrality. Swanson says that YouTube streams as much data in three months as the world's radio, cable and broadcast television channels stream in one year, 75 petabytes. He argues that today’s networks are not remotely prepared to handle what he calls the "exaflood" (see exabytes). He argues that net neutrality would prevent broadband networks from being built, which would limit available bandwidth and thus endanger innovation.
I don't see how youtube endangers innovation, nor the necessity of a greater bandwidth endangers innovation. There was something that was "the mother of invention", as I recall....


Plus, such arguments ignore that fact that YouTube pays for its side of the bandwidth already. Pays quite a bit, in fact. The ISPs are essentially asking for the right to double-charge content providers.

So who is going to pay for the broadband network? We already did. Throughout the '90s, the RBOCs (regional bells) asked for tax breaks and rate hikes to pay for the infrastructure necessary for broadband. They instead used the money to merge with each other and get into the long distance business. By all rights, an equivalent to Verizon's FiOS service should have been offered more than a decade ago.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Net Netrality: The me-first generation wins.

Postby Ixtellor » Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:50 pm UTC

Malice wrote:
Ixtellor wrote:
Malice wrote:If you actually have citations, I'd love to read them.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27983915/


Do you have similar studies conducted for prior generations?


The institute that conducted that survey has done it several times prior, with the earliest being 1998.
edit: They have been doing it for longer than that, but a quick search for me did not yield all their previous reportcards.

You can access those and make comparisons. In the original link they mentioned some of the trends and differences, based on their own survey.

http://charactercounts.org/programs/reportcard/

If you scroll down that page, you can access all prior surveys and results.


Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Net Netrality: The me-first generation wins.

Postby Azrael » Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:01 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:P.S. I have no position on net neutrality. Its just humorous to me, that the generation with the highest propensity to lie,cheat, and steal and still think its moral, would want this.


So ... which generation *is* it that you're playing old fogey on the porch towards? Because I doubt I fit that particular arbitrary age categorization. And not only do I strongly disapprove of piracy, but I *also* support net neutrality. In the pro-active, actually corresponded with legislators about it sort of way.

In short: Generalizations don't work and bitching about how much young people today suck is not news. Nor has it been since the first time the complaint was made, which if I recall correctly , was shortly after language was invented.

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: Net Netrality: The me-first generation wins.

Postby frezik » Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:14 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:The institute that conducted that survey has done it several times prior, with the earliest being 1998.
edit: They have been doing it for longer than that, but a quick search for me did not yield all their previous reportcards.

You can access those and make comparisons. In the original link they mentioned some of the trends and differences, based on their own survey.

http://charactercounts.org/programs/reportcard/

If you scroll down that page, you can access all prior surveys and results.


Ixtellor


1998 isn't exactly a generation ago, and they don't seem to have complete results for that year, so it's hard to compare responses directly. One question they do list for both is "admitting to stealing in the last 12 months", which is down significantly:

1998: 47%
2008: 30%

Their summary for 1998 also says the 1996 number was 39%.

The 2008 survey also has a question of "lied on at least one or two questions on the survey". I imagine myself back in high school, having been given this survey in some class or another, getting to this question, checking "yes", and giggling uncontrollably at the Hofstadterian self-reference.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
Sockmonkey
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby Sockmonkey » Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:37 pm UTC

Ok, I can breathe again. I seriously though net neutrallity was going to die and we would have to suffer through years of crap before enough people got pissed enough about it to do something.

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby frezik » Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:47 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Aetius wrote:It's not textbook capitalism because companies like Comcast rely, almost exclusively, on customer ignorance, barriers to entry, and complex telecommunications regulations to maintain their position. It's the exact reason Net Neutrality is required, because the ISP situation doesn't operate as it would in a true free market.
Beyond the complex telecommunication relations (and I don't see how those regulations pertain to denial of service), how is customer ignorance and other barriers to fair competition not capitalistic? As I understand it, capitalism isn't fair - it doesn't operate on the notion that every customer is well-informed or has access to the same resources.


It does. A healthy market needs every player to have access to the same information. See The Market for Lemons, which starts with an analogy to the used car market, where the seller hides information about the true condition of the car, so that good and bad cars look exactly the same to the buyer. From there, the argument is generalized to other markets, such as health insurance for the elderly and disabled.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: FCC plans to back Net Neutrality

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:07 am UTC

frezik wrote:It does. A healthy market needs every player to have access to the same information. See The Market for Lemons, which starts with an analogy to the used car market, where the seller hides information about the true condition of the car, so that good and bad cars look exactly the same to the buyer. From there, the argument is generalized to other markets, such as health insurance for the elderly and disabled.
I beg your pardon, then! That... huh. That actually makes me a lot more cynical about free market ideology.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Net Netrality: The me-first generation wins.

Postby Ixtellor » Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:14 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
Ixtellor wrote:P.S. I have no position on net neutrality. Its just humorous to me, that the generation with the highest propensity to lie,cheat, and steal and still think its moral, would want this.


So ... which generation *is* it that you're playing old fogey on the porch towards? Because I doubt I fit that particular arbitrary age categorization. And not only do I strongly disapprove of piracy, but I *also* support net neutrality. In the pro-active, actually corresponded with legislators about it sort of way.

In short: Generalizations don't work and bitching about how much young people today suck is not news. Nor has it been since the first time the complaint was made, which if I recall correctly , was shortly after language was invented.


If you go do a search in your own forum, you will find an SB worthy post from me, about how every generation talks about how horrible the current generation is, and how they are never right.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=37030&p=1476749&hilit=Ixtellor+spoiled+generation#p1476749

Here is my favorite quote regarding old fogey's and kids today.
It is to be feared that the men of this generation are spoiled by the indulgence shown to their natural indolence, and made tender by the excessive pains which have been taken to render everything smooth and easy. Our intellects are dwarfed and stunted by the constant stimulus of amusement...There is no taste for hardy application, no capacity for vigorous and manly efforts of the understanding. -- Frederick Henry Hedge, 1883


Here is what I said 6 months ago on your forum.
Kids are always awful, and adults always feel this 'new generation' is different from previous one, but life goes on, and the horrible kids of today, turn into the concerned parents who hate teenages tomorrow.


The only reason I even bothered to give this generation a poke, is the very firm belief that they have the right to download all music, TV shows, Movies, and software for free and thumb their noses at the people who put their time, energy, heart, and soul into those works.

So basically you just told me, what I already told you on.

Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 16 guests