A few days ago the FCC voted to start the rule making process concerning net neutrality. TechDirt reported: "NY Times And Washington Post Describe Yesterday's Net Neutrality Vote In Diametrically Opposite Ways". Of particular concern is the heading: "The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 on Thursday to move forward with a set of proposed rules aimed at guaranteeing an open Internet prohibiting high-speed Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against legal content flowing through their pipes." (emphasis added) in the New York Times. So who gets to define the words "legal content" and the subsequent consequences?
Will the content producers be the ones defining what is legal and illegal? If so, it makes a mockery of the judicial process. Technically, if someone believes an action is illegal, they take it to court and present facts to obtain a judgment. I seriously doubt that the content industry wants to be contained by the relatively slow and cumbersome judicial process. Instead, they would probably wish to take immediate action with absurdly minimal proof against anyone they whimsically designate as an offender.
What about the rights of the supposed offender? If the content producers can unilaterally designate someone as an offender, what are their rights to refute those charges? Will there be penalties imposed on those making false claims of illegal activity? If not; that would allow the content producers to accuse and take punitive action against anyone without the fear of consequences. This would be a violation of due process. Basically, justice by intimidation.
Will the content producers be able to read your content? To assess whether content is "legal" or not, would appear to imply that the content producers would have an opportunity to conduct warrantless wiretapping on content. Reading a persons' content stream to assess whether they are being legal or illegal would be a violation of due process. Technically, to have a wiretap put into place one needs substantial verifiable suspicion that a crime is being committed.
Making the ISP providers the "police" to protect the content producers. This is actually quite repulsive. The basic responsibility of the ISPs is to deliver content. Not to interfere with the delivery of that content. The content producers should not be able to demand that the ISPs read content to protect them (the content producers) and/or to take any adverse action against the supposed offender. For example, if you believe that an illegal action is being taken in a nearby house, you can't simply walk up to a random third person and demand that they be the ones to break into that house to find and arrest any suspected burglar. That is supposed to the responsibility of the police and the judicial system.
Who would pay for the ISP "police". The answer unfortunately is quite obvious, the consumer through increased subscription fees. Forcing the ISPs to act as "police" places a resource burden on them. Consequently, it should be the content producers that should pay the ISPs "police" since the ISPs would be working for the direct and sole benefit of the content producers.
Showing posts with label Network Neutrality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Network Neutrality. Show all posts
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Net-Neutrality Deception
Those opposed to net-neutrality like to make the claim that they require "freedom" from regulation to foster innovation. Furthermore, they claim that since the packets flow on their networks, that they have an implicit right to manage the network. Especially the need to use engineering to solve network congestion problems.
On the surface, these assertions appear reasonable. These assertions, however, are bogus when you investigate. Like Bill Clinton's famous phrase "It depends on the meaning of "sex"". We need to demand an explanation from the ISPs how they intend to use "freedom". So far, those opposed to net-neutrality never mention their responsibilities nor the rights of the network users. Freedom without responsibility, to me, is anathema.
But, I digress. At TechDirt I recently saw one of those rare posts that leaks the real intent of how "freedom" would be used by the network providers. Not for effective data flow based on valid engineering principles, but for managing the the flow of data for self-serving corporate reasons. Bas Grasmayer writes: "Although the below image has been circulating the internet as a satirical warning for some time now, Dutch telco KPN recently announced that it's actually going to implement something like this due to declining revenue. ... The company stated that starting this summer it will be blocking chat-messaging applications such as WhatsApp (competes with SMS), VoIP services (competes with calls) and heavy streaming services. All these services will get their own price tag, just like what is currently the case with calling and text messaging. The problem with that logic of course is that calling and SMS are actually different services that the telco offers; but in the case of creating pay packages for internet services, probably none of the services are from the telco itself. Some other telcos, such as Vodafone, already stated that it, too, is interested in plans like these (Vodafone is already blocking VoIP and selling access to VoIP services for 5 EUR per month)." (Emphasis Added)
Back in 2009 Mike Masnick wrote in the post "Clearwire Supports Net Neutrality? Does No One Remember Its History?" that "A few years back, it was blocking VoIP and streaming media and proudly promised to block any type of traffic or application it didn't like. It also tried to get VoIP providers to get "certified" before promising they could work on Clearwire's network."
The term "freedom" in the best Orwellian tradition of Newspeak is not the promised fair and equitable handling of a users data stream, but the active management of that data by the network providers for their benefit. In the cases cited above, by blocking user access to certain services.
PS: I didn't delve into other network mismanagement concerns such as filtering, censorship, deep packet inspection, and due process.
On the surface, these assertions appear reasonable. These assertions, however, are bogus when you investigate. Like Bill Clinton's famous phrase "It depends on the meaning of "sex"". We need to demand an explanation from the ISPs how they intend to use "freedom". So far, those opposed to net-neutrality never mention their responsibilities nor the rights of the network users. Freedom without responsibility, to me, is anathema.
But, I digress. At TechDirt I recently saw one of those rare posts that leaks the real intent of how "freedom" would be used by the network providers. Not for effective data flow based on valid engineering principles, but for managing the the flow of data for self-serving corporate reasons. Bas Grasmayer writes: "Although the below image has been circulating the internet as a satirical warning for some time now, Dutch telco KPN recently announced that it's actually going to implement something like this due to declining revenue. ... The company stated that starting this summer it will be blocking chat-messaging applications such as WhatsApp (competes with SMS), VoIP services (competes with calls) and heavy streaming services. All these services will get their own price tag, just like what is currently the case with calling and text messaging. The problem with that logic of course is that calling and SMS are actually different services that the telco offers; but in the case of creating pay packages for internet services, probably none of the services are from the telco itself. Some other telcos, such as Vodafone, already stated that it, too, is interested in plans like these (Vodafone is already blocking VoIP and selling access to VoIP services for 5 EUR per month)." (Emphasis Added)
Back in 2009 Mike Masnick wrote in the post "Clearwire Supports Net Neutrality? Does No One Remember Its History?" that "A few years back, it was blocking VoIP and streaming media and proudly promised to block any type of traffic or application it didn't like. It also tried to get VoIP providers to get "certified" before promising they could work on Clearwire's network."
The term "freedom" in the best Orwellian tradition of Newspeak is not the promised fair and equitable handling of a users data stream, but the active management of that data by the network providers for their benefit. In the cases cited above, by blocking user access to certain services.
PS: I didn't delve into other network mismanagement concerns such as filtering, censorship, deep packet inspection, and due process.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Glenn Beck Gets Net-Neutrality Wrong
A big news item for today is that Senator Lieberman is essentially resurrecting McCarthyism, this quickie casual observation concerns a remark that Glenn Beck made on his show today. Glenn was making his usual conspiracy theory diatribe against left wing progressives. In doing so, Glenn mentioned that net-neutrality was the being promoted by the "left" as a means of censoring the news. So wrong.
It is the "right" wing corporate interests (such as the RIAA) and other content producers who seek to prevent the implementation of net-neutrality so that they can censor (manage) the flow of information.
US Copyright Czar: Expect More Domain Censorship.
It is the "right" wing corporate interests (such as the RIAA) and other content producers who seek to prevent the implementation of net-neutrality so that they can censor (manage) the flow of information.
US Copyright Czar: Expect More Domain Censorship.
Monday, February 22, 2010
The Great Net Neutrality Debate IV
Once again the Adam Thierer on the Technology Liberation Front has posted a video, Reason TV on Net Neutrality Regulation, which only presents "half" of the net neutrality debate. The video is interesting and worth watching and makes a reasonable claim that network neutrality regulation may be premature. In the video Michael Moynihan logically concludes that exploring regulation becomes an option should the free-market fail.
What was omitted from this video, the missing half, are the attempts of corporations to buy favorable regulation from Congress. Once again we have a biased discussion that speaks of regulation that favors the consumer as "bad", but is totally silent on the attempts of the private sector to acquire regulation that favors their special interests. Seems to me that if you are truly in favor of an unregulated internet, as implied by the video, that you would also expose the attempts of the private sector to "buy" regulation.
For example, Al Gore is made out as a "bad" person for advocating that all people be treated equally on the internet. But where is the mention of US Senator Dianne Feinstein in all this? According to The Register, (2/11/2009) cites Public Knowledge Diane Feinstein is sponsoring a "network management amendment" at the behest of the Motion Picture Association of America. The article notes that this would allow the ISPs to manage the flow of traffic. Additionally, in typical Save the Children language this is being done for our benefit. Not only that but "... if they're using copyright infringement and child porn as excuses, they'll have to start sniffing packets. So, Feinstein's amendment would also destroy net privacy - if there's any out there." (The Register story is a year old, I don't know what transpired since then.)
If Michael Moynihan video was a balanced presentation, Al Gore and Dianne Feinstein would both have had some face time on the video.
What was omitted from this video, the missing half, are the attempts of corporations to buy favorable regulation from Congress. Once again we have a biased discussion that speaks of regulation that favors the consumer as "bad", but is totally silent on the attempts of the private sector to acquire regulation that favors their special interests. Seems to me that if you are truly in favor of an unregulated internet, as implied by the video, that you would also expose the attempts of the private sector to "buy" regulation.
For example, Al Gore is made out as a "bad" person for advocating that all people be treated equally on the internet. But where is the mention of US Senator Dianne Feinstein in all this? According to The Register, (2/11/2009) cites Public Knowledge Diane Feinstein is sponsoring a "network management amendment" at the behest of the Motion Picture Association of America. The article notes that this would allow the ISPs to manage the flow of traffic. Additionally, in typical Save the Children language this is being done for our benefit. Not only that but "... if they're using copyright infringement and child porn as excuses, they'll have to start sniffing packets. So, Feinstein's amendment would also destroy net privacy - if there's any out there." (The Register story is a year old, I don't know what transpired since then.)
If Michael Moynihan video was a balanced presentation, Al Gore and Dianne Feinstein would both have had some face time on the video.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Private Property - Don't Touch!!!
Private property is one of the fundamental building blocks upon which the United States is built. Regretfully the concept of private property is increasingly being abused. Specifically the claim that you are entitled to tell others what to do should you believe that your "property" is somehow being affected.
A recent illustration of this process appeared in the "StarNewsOnline.com" a local newspaper out of Wilmington, North Carolina. So I thought that I had better jump on this story as it also complements my beliefs that those who believe in so-called intellectual property are claiming property rights that they don't possess.
The Star News writes in the article "Ocean Isle Beach homeowners, officials battle over native landscape" that:
On the nature of property from the Libertarian point of view, S. Balasubramanian wrote that one of the most basic principles of Objectivism is that no man may claim the right to initiate force against another. (An Objectivist Recants on IP). I am not an Objectivist (in fact I consider it to be a bankrupt philosophy), nevertheless there is an important fundamental take-away from this Libertarian concept. One does not have a right to "force" another on their property to protect your so-called property interests.
Unfortunately, neighbors (as the Oakley story points out) seem to believe today that they can tell you what to do on your property based on the fact that it affects their property values. The Oakley case regretfully is not unique, when we lived in California the local papers would occasionally have articles on how trees on private property and public parks, blocking coastal views, would be mysteriously cut down.
In terms of so-called intellectual property, those who have "sold" you the content believe, like the Oakley neighbors, that they maintain an entitlement to reach out and tell you how you can use your property. S. Balasubramanian phrased concept this better with the following question: "How do you reconcile the facts that recognising and enforcing IP essentially gives some people a right to the physical property of others?"
The situation that the Oakley's are in is really quite similar to what is happening with so-called intellectual property. The figurative "neighbors" assert that they have an unjustified right to "force" you to protect their property even if it places a needless burden on you. It is time to recognize that "neighbors" do not have a right to "force" you to protect their property rights (which in some cases is fictitious anyway).
A recent illustration of this process appeared in the "StarNewsOnline.com" a local newspaper out of Wilmington, North Carolina. So I thought that I had better jump on this story as it also complements my beliefs that those who believe in so-called intellectual property are claiming property rights that they don't possess.
The Star News writes in the article "Ocean Isle Beach homeowners, officials battle over native landscape" that:
So here we have the neighbors and the local municipality asserting that they have a "right" to "force" a property owner to do things on their property to protect the property values of others.Beauty, it's said, is in the eye of the beholder. And for Doug and Jane Oakley, their house in Ocean Isle Beach surrounded by thick and lush native vegetation is a beautiful sight.
“This is the glue that holds this island together,” said Jane Oakley as she pointed out the yaupon, wax myrtle and cedars amid the green canopy in her backyard. “Mother nature isn't wrong.”
But some of their neighbors, along with officials in this Brunswick County beach town, have a different opinion.
They see the trees and shrubs, many covered in thickets of thorny vines, that surround the house at 9 Isle Plaza as an eyesore and a haven for rodents and snakes.
The town has now taken the couple to court in an effort to get their property cleaned up
....
The house, built in 1964, also looks out of place and a bit dilapidated when compared with the newer and larger beach homes that line the quiet street.
The Oakleys think that might be the real reason they're under pressure to clean up their lot.
On the nature of property from the Libertarian point of view, S. Balasubramanian wrote that one of the most basic principles of Objectivism is that no man may claim the right to initiate force against another. (An Objectivist Recants on IP). I am not an Objectivist (in fact I consider it to be a bankrupt philosophy), nevertheless there is an important fundamental take-away from this Libertarian concept. One does not have a right to "force" another on their property to protect your so-called property interests.
Unfortunately, neighbors (as the Oakley story points out) seem to believe today that they can tell you what to do on your property based on the fact that it affects their property values. The Oakley case regretfully is not unique, when we lived in California the local papers would occasionally have articles on how trees on private property and public parks, blocking coastal views, would be mysteriously cut down.
In terms of so-called intellectual property, those who have "sold" you the content believe, like the Oakley neighbors, that they maintain an entitlement to reach out and tell you how you can use your property. S. Balasubramanian phrased concept this better with the following question: "How do you reconcile the facts that recognising and enforcing IP essentially gives some people a right to the physical property of others?"
The situation that the Oakley's are in is really quite similar to what is happening with so-called intellectual property. The figurative "neighbors" assert that they have an unjustified right to "force" you to protect their property even if it places a needless burden on you. It is time to recognize that "neighbors" do not have a right to "force" you to protect their property rights (which in some cases is fictitious anyway).
Friday, December 11, 2009
Net Neutrality and the First Amendment
This is going to be a short casual Casual Observation concerning the amorphous "them" who believe that net neutrality will violate the First Amendment. See the post Net Neutrality Regulation & the First Amendment by Adam Thierer. The claim is that the "evil" regulators are out to squelch freedom of speech. This whole analysis by Thierer is astonishingly simplistic and biased.
It is simplistic and biased since it seems to purposely overlook the attempts of the private sector to employ the power of the State to squelch freedom of speech. For example, TechDirt reports that: "Tiger Woods Gags UK Media; Alerts World To Nude Photos". Now, if that example seems a bit off topic, this article is a bit closer: "Anti-Piracy Group Says That Just Talking About File Sharing Should Be Illegal". Even closer to the point: "AT&T Whines To FCC That Google Voice Violates Net Neutrality".
Now if the ani-net neutrality folks are so adamant about protecting freedom of speech, why do they not expose the efforts of the private sector to use the power of the State to deny freedom of speech?
Of course there is a companion question (that I will not be delving into at the moment) concerning the efforts of the private sector to lobby the "evil" regulators to pass laws favorable to their self interests. So when this type of lobbying occurs, why doesn't the anti-net neutrality crowd whine about this form of abomination?
My take, the anti-net neutrality crowd, despite their supposed defense of free speech, are surreptitiously promoting corporatism.
As an aside, Julian Sanchez has an excellent article: "The Virtual Fourth Amendment". Concerning the complexities related to the collection of private information. I had hoped to integrate this into today's post, but it will have to wait for a later day.
It is simplistic and biased since it seems to purposely overlook the attempts of the private sector to employ the power of the State to squelch freedom of speech. For example, TechDirt reports that: "Tiger Woods Gags UK Media; Alerts World To Nude Photos". Now, if that example seems a bit off topic, this article is a bit closer: "Anti-Piracy Group Says That Just Talking About File Sharing Should Be Illegal". Even closer to the point: "AT&T Whines To FCC That Google Voice Violates Net Neutrality".
Now if the ani-net neutrality folks are so adamant about protecting freedom of speech, why do they not expose the efforts of the private sector to use the power of the State to deny freedom of speech?
Of course there is a companion question (that I will not be delving into at the moment) concerning the efforts of the private sector to lobby the "evil" regulators to pass laws favorable to their self interests. So when this type of lobbying occurs, why doesn't the anti-net neutrality crowd whine about this form of abomination?
My take, the anti-net neutrality crowd, despite their supposed defense of free speech, are surreptitiously promoting corporatism.
As an aside, Julian Sanchez has an excellent article: "The Virtual Fourth Amendment". Concerning the complexities related to the collection of private information. I had hoped to integrate this into today's post, but it will have to wait for a later day.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
The Great Net Neutrality Debate III
What is the probability that that the visionary ideal of a neutral internet can be fulfilled?
That question emerged in my mind as a result of articles posted on TechDirt and AgainstMonopoly. Evidently ESPN is floating the concept that ISPs should directly pay ESPN for providing content rather than at the consumer level. WIRED quoted Ben Scott, policy director for media reform and net neutrality advocate Free Press, as saying: ""Ultimately, if you carry it to its logical extreme — that's everyone charging for their content, and depending upon where you are and which ISP you're using to connect to the internet, your internet experience is different — that's a really unsettling prospect," says Scott. "I think it undermines the foundational principles that make the internet such an engine of innovation and creativity.""
Based on what I have been reading concerning the ongoing verbal assaults on network neutrality; Scott's comment makes me wonder if the concept of a neutral internet will eventually be eroded and debased into oblivion. We have already seen companies such a Comcast use abusive tactics euphemistically referred to as "traffic shaping" to control the flow of packets in violation of neutrality concepts. The RIAA and the MPPA are attempting to require that ISPs act as their private police force by reading (filtering) the flow of packets. Additionally, there are special interest groups that believe that the internet should somehow be "censored" to protect the unsuspecting public from the "demon of the day". The question naturally arises, if there is a constant unrelenting barage on a neutral internet, how long can the internet really remain neutral?
Unfortunately, it seems to me that the network neutrality debate remains myriad in the dogma that if the internet is not regulated that the free-market will magically keep it neutral. The anecdotal evidence, however, demonstrates that this is a false belief.
First, those who believe that the free-market will somehow protect a neutral intenet seem to be overlooking the obvious continued and repeated attempts of some network players to destroy network neutrality. Basically, if you don't initially succeed try again and again until you do succeeded, which seems to be the strategy being pursued by Comcast, the RIAA, and the MPPA.
Second, we seem to missing a call for companies to pursue an ethical course of action. If we do not want the internet to be regulated by an "oppressive" government, the obvious solution is to be proactive and solve the problem before aggravated citizens demand government intervention. I urge that those who analyze the network neutrality issue begin to demand ethical behavior that is outlined in an industry code of conduct that clearly defines network neutrality and obligates the players to work within the code of conduct.
That question emerged in my mind as a result of articles posted on TechDirt and AgainstMonopoly. Evidently ESPN is floating the concept that ISPs should directly pay ESPN for providing content rather than at the consumer level. WIRED quoted Ben Scott, policy director for media reform and net neutrality advocate Free Press, as saying: ""Ultimately, if you carry it to its logical extreme — that's everyone charging for their content, and depending upon where you are and which ISP you're using to connect to the internet, your internet experience is different — that's a really unsettling prospect," says Scott. "I think it undermines the foundational principles that make the internet such an engine of innovation and creativity.""
Based on what I have been reading concerning the ongoing verbal assaults on network neutrality; Scott's comment makes me wonder if the concept of a neutral internet will eventually be eroded and debased into oblivion. We have already seen companies such a Comcast use abusive tactics euphemistically referred to as "traffic shaping" to control the flow of packets in violation of neutrality concepts. The RIAA and the MPPA are attempting to require that ISPs act as their private police force by reading (filtering) the flow of packets. Additionally, there are special interest groups that believe that the internet should somehow be "censored" to protect the unsuspecting public from the "demon of the day". The question naturally arises, if there is a constant unrelenting barage on a neutral internet, how long can the internet really remain neutral?
Unfortunately, it seems to me that the network neutrality debate remains myriad in the dogma that if the internet is not regulated that the free-market will magically keep it neutral. The anecdotal evidence, however, demonstrates that this is a false belief.
First, those who believe that the free-market will somehow protect a neutral intenet seem to be overlooking the obvious continued and repeated attempts of some network players to destroy network neutrality. Basically, if you don't initially succeed try again and again until you do succeeded, which seems to be the strategy being pursued by Comcast, the RIAA, and the MPPA.
Second, we seem to missing a call for companies to pursue an ethical course of action. If we do not want the internet to be regulated by an "oppressive" government, the obvious solution is to be proactive and solve the problem before aggravated citizens demand government intervention. I urge that those who analyze the network neutrality issue begin to demand ethical behavior that is outlined in an industry code of conduct that clearly defines network neutrality and obligates the players to work within the code of conduct.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Great Net Neutrality Debate II
Evidently a Wall Street Journal article sparked a variety of posts related to Network Neutrality. One post was at the Technology Liberation: "Front, Bandwidth, Storewidth, and Net Neutrality", which in turn referenced the testimony of George Gilder before the Senate Commerce Committee in April 2004. What intrigued me with the narrative, was the following narrative.
The narrative, to me, is logically flawed in another manner. If the technology exists, it can be deployed. If it is not deployed then the corporate leaders have made a willing choice not to use it. I would say this is similar to regulations imposing automobile emission standards. The US auto industry said it couldn't be done and whined to Congress. The Japaneses called in their engineers and did it. Now, because they have failed to adapt the American automotive industry is facing bankruptcy.
If the Asian internet is better then the US internet, we need to examine what they are doing and then adapt that technology so that we will have a better internet. Effective corporate leadership means adapting, not whining to Congress for special breaks such as bailouts or less regulation. If our corporate leaders talk free market principles, they should live it through competition.
I also provided this comment at the Technology Liberation Front.
Although American companies invented almost all the technologies crucial to the Internet, we have fallen behind many other nations in the deployment of these technologies.The purpose of George Gilder testimony was to establish how America is falling behind due to "oppressive" regulation. The problem with the narrative is that it is logically flawed since Mr. Gilder has not delved into why the Asian internet is better than the US internet. One can't simply say that regulation in the US has made our internet "bad" when compared to the Asian internet. For all I know, the Asian internet could be even more regulated than the US internet. Or they have better network managers than we do? Mr. Gilder has simply overlooked these potential reasons.
The U.S. now ranks eleventh internationally in residential "broadband" access. Using the FCC’s silly 200-kilobit-per-second definition, some now say that 25 percent of American homes have broadband. But by the standards of Asia–where most citizens enjoy access speeds 10 times faster than our fastest links–U.S. residences have no broadband at all. U.S. businesses have far less broadband than South Korean residences. South Korea, for instance, has 40 times the per capita bandwidth of the U.S. Japan is close behind Korea, and countries from China to Italy are removing obstacles to the deployment of vDSL, fiber-to-the-home, and broadband wireless networks.
Asian broadband also proves there was no Internet "bubble." Today, Korea runs over the net between a three and five times larger share of its economy than we do. Riding the bus to work, Koreans watch television news and exchange video mail over their mobile phones. They enjoy full-motion video education and entertainment in their homes. Many of the dot-coms that failed in America due to the lack of robust broadband links are thriving in Korea. Consider that by this time next year Verizon Wireless’s 38 million customers will enjoy faster Internet access via their mobile phones than through their Verizon DSL connections to their homes. Only the most severe disincentives to invest could have yielded such a result, which defies the laws of physics. The American Internet "bubble" was actually a crisis of policy.
The narrative, to me, is logically flawed in another manner. If the technology exists, it can be deployed. If it is not deployed then the corporate leaders have made a willing choice not to use it. I would say this is similar to regulations imposing automobile emission standards. The US auto industry said it couldn't be done and whined to Congress. The Japaneses called in their engineers and did it. Now, because they have failed to adapt the American automotive industry is facing bankruptcy.
If the Asian internet is better then the US internet, we need to examine what they are doing and then adapt that technology so that we will have a better internet. Effective corporate leadership means adapting, not whining to Congress for special breaks such as bailouts or less regulation. If our corporate leaders talk free market principles, they should live it through competition.
I also provided this comment at the Technology Liberation Front.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
The Great Net Neutrality Debate
The internet has become an indispensable tool for most of us. Our ability to use the internet depends on the transmission of data packets. How those data packets are transmitted through the internet cloud has become a matter of controversy. Here is a sampling from The Technological Liberation Front. Here is a sampling from TechDirt and here. The controversy revolves around the issue of whether the transmission of data packets should or should not be regulated by the government.
Sounds simple, but it is far from simple. Those who advocate that net neutrality should not be subject to government regulation assert that it is a private network and not subject to government oversight. Furthermore, the argument is made that if an internet service provider (ISP) attempts to break net neutrality concepts that the ISP will punished by the market and would be forced go back to a net neutrality operating concept. Given our free-market orientation this appears to be exactly what we would want.
Unfortunately, the utopian free-market concept of net neutrality crashes in the face of reality. The private market simply can not be trusted to implement a neutral internet from the consumers perspective.
First, those who vehemently argue against government regulation speak of all the problems that government regulation of the internet may create. The problem is that those who do not want regulation refuse with equal vehemence to offer the public any guarantees that they would operate under the principle of network neutrality. They state that if a network neutrality concern surfaces, the market will magically punish the abuser thereby restoring the operation of network neutrality.
This theoretical self-correction sounds reasonable but it breaks down in the face of reality. The average person does not have the equipment and technical expertise to monitor the internet. Companies, if discovered, can easily say "OOPS, sorry about that" and then try another abusive tactic. So if the ISP are unwilling to stand-up and offer the public reasonable guarantees of network neutrality, why should we trust them. "The check is in the mail."
Second, the argument is made that the ISPs would have little incentive to interfere with the movement of packets on the internet. This is bunk.
However, before I go further there are times when an ISP has legitimate technical reasons for managing packet flows on the internet. My comments pertain to when an ISP interferes with packet flows for ulterior reasons unrelated to technical issues.
Richard Bennett commented that: "In general, arguments that service providers can't do this or that as a practical matter are founded on sand. Advances in technology make many things practical tomorrow that are utterly impossible today, and we can more or less expect that to happen." This observation is reflected in reality. (Please note that Richard Bennett would, more than likely not agree with my statements below.)
Sounds simple, but it is far from simple. Those who advocate that net neutrality should not be subject to government regulation assert that it is a private network and not subject to government oversight. Furthermore, the argument is made that if an internet service provider (ISP) attempts to break net neutrality concepts that the ISP will punished by the market and would be forced go back to a net neutrality operating concept. Given our free-market orientation this appears to be exactly what we would want.
Unfortunately, the utopian free-market concept of net neutrality crashes in the face of reality. The private market simply can not be trusted to implement a neutral internet from the consumers perspective.
First, those who vehemently argue against government regulation speak of all the problems that government regulation of the internet may create. The problem is that those who do not want regulation refuse with equal vehemence to offer the public any guarantees that they would operate under the principle of network neutrality. They state that if a network neutrality concern surfaces, the market will magically punish the abuser thereby restoring the operation of network neutrality.
This theoretical self-correction sounds reasonable but it breaks down in the face of reality. The average person does not have the equipment and technical expertise to monitor the internet. Companies, if discovered, can easily say "OOPS, sorry about that" and then try another abusive tactic. So if the ISP are unwilling to stand-up and offer the public reasonable guarantees of network neutrality, why should we trust them. "The check is in the mail."
Second, the argument is made that the ISPs would have little incentive to interfere with the movement of packets on the internet. This is bunk.
However, before I go further there are times when an ISP has legitimate technical reasons for managing packet flows on the internet. My comments pertain to when an ISP interferes with packet flows for ulterior reasons unrelated to technical issues.
Richard Bennett commented that: "In general, arguments that service providers can't do this or that as a practical matter are founded on sand. Advances in technology make many things practical tomorrow that are utterly impossible today, and we can more or less expect that to happen." This observation is reflected in reality. (Please note that Richard Bennett would, more than likely not agree with my statements below.)
- In the ideal situation where the ISP is just providing the "pipe" there is no economic incentive to filter. However, when telecoms (as one example) are part of the network flow, there are significant economic incentives to filter. FreeConference.com Sues AT&T For Blocked Phone Calls.
- Then there is the corporate intimidation tactic: Movie Studios Sue Australian ISP For Not Waving Magic Wand And Defeating Piracy
- We are now living in a world where special interest groups are demanding that laws be passed to force ISPs to break network neutrality concepts.
RIAA Gets Tennessee Law To Force Universities To Filter Networks For Copyrighted Content - As a follow-up to the special interest groups gaining favorable legislation is the concern that private companies are now obtaining governmental police powers. This would essentially allow private companies to censor the internet at their whim. This is not an idle concern. Harvard Law Professor Charles R. Nesson, stated "This is an unconstitutional delegation by Congress of executive prosecutorial powers to private hands," says Nesson. "That a private organization is allowed to take a huge chunk of government power and impose its will upon millions of people is, frankly, disconcerting,"
- This may seem outlandish, but then we are in a free market economic system, so it may be possible for the likes of the RIAA or the MPAA to pay the ISPs to spy on internet traffic for the purpose of uncovering the theft of so-called intellectual property. Essentially, private enterprise (in the name of protecting their so-called property rights) believes that they would have the right to read your private "mail" (packet) without your permission.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)