Net Neutrality!

Posted By: Tina Wood | Oct 16th, 2006 @ 8:12 AM

So here is a subject that affects all of us. Net Neutrality. Wikepedia has some good information about the history of the subject as well. This is really a huge issue for our generation and those younger of course. The Internet has absolutely changed the way we live. In both positive ways and I would say negative ways. Network neutrality is supported widely by large Internet content companies and opposed by large communication carriers. This is an issue that has sort of taken a back seat lately to who is buying who but I think its a topic that is worth talking about. And you guys have been great about expressing your opinions...so is this as big of a deal to you guys as it is to me?

Tags: debate, government, Internet, Seattle

Rating:

Comments (32)

Downloads

Dengin

Nice one, Tina.

I was there when there was ArpaNet, and then Bitnet (was a moderator on Bitnet Relay, Wiki has an entry on that), and I used Gopher, and IRC, when it was brand new, and watched the Web grow to what it is today. It is preposterous to think that companies can control the flow information this way. Without the Internet, none of these companies would be nearly as successful as they are today, so this is how they repay us?

Access to information is one thing, the way in which data flows should be untouchable. More emphasis should be placed on confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data.

V360

Great topic, T-Dub!

Alright, so when I read-up about the term, "Net Neutrality" (I will get to that topic in a mintue), I immediately started to think about the cable companies monopolizing our...cable TV.

I totally support the Consumers Having Options in Cable Entertainment Act (or "CHOICE" Act). Allowing the consumers to choose what channels they want to pay for, is something I would LOVE to see. Serioulsy, there are so many channels we don't watch (and pay for!), it's insane!! Not to mention the prices of cable! Outrageous!!!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003019336_mccainop26.html

http://www.theorator.com/bills109/s3457.html

Now, getting back to the "Net Neutrality" topic...this is (basically) the same situation with the cable TV, only with the Internet. This is a serious topic and I'd be more than happy to give my 2 cents on this issue (and other related issues).

If the Internet were to be treated the same way as cable TV...what a shame. I'm already mad about paying so much damn money for "High-Speed Internet", every month, and if my IP were to "take over" (what has been a freedom for me and everyone that uses the Internet), I would be one VERY upset customer and U.S. citizen, for not being able to express my (1st Amendment) rights.

To put it better, I'd rather see Cable TV more like a "restaurant" (ordering whatever you want from the menu). It should be freedom of choice (with what's available).

Telling me what I can or CAN NOT view online is something I will not take a back seat to.

If, for example, Comcast had it's own "video-viewing website" and said I can't go to Youtube, because Comcast wants it's subscribers to visit their own site, I would switch companies. Control over what content WE watch/view from a company or even the government, in my opinion, is something I'm not supportive of.

All Comcast (and other IPs) should do is provide the service/connection-speed that I pay for (should be at a lower cost than what it is now) and not regulate the Internet, as they have done with their Cable TV service.

The Internet is (and has been) an open/freedom "environment" for all of us to experience and it should stay that way.

What these companies are trying to do is a form of "censorship" and control/monopolizing. Greed. That's all it is.

I'm going to get a little-way from the main topic here, and I apologize, but I want to say this...

Another thing that I want to quickly mention is my lack of appreciation for the FCC and their "law" of censorship on the radio, TV, etc. I'm so SICK of seeing movies being played on TV that are "cut-up" and edited, because of the possibility of children watching. We are so lucky that HBO, Showtime, Starz, Cinemax, TMC, Encore, Fox Movie Channel, IFC, Sundance, PPV, and On Demand are available (and I heard the FCC wants to try to regulate those too).

The point I want to make is that if a movie is going to be shown on regular television (FOX, for example), show the movie the way it was originally edited. And not just movies, but I wish TV shows (non-HBO-type cable channel shows) were also uncensored as The Sopranos, for example.

I'll give credit to channels, such as ABC (NYPD Blue), FX (The Shield, for example) and Spike (Blade: The Series, now cancelled), for creating shows, that sort of get-away with language and violence, but I just don't like the idea of being censored like that.

I don't think I need to mention terrestrial-radio and the FCC's control over it (and of course, a certain morning disc-jockey that had to leave from terrestrial radio)...at least satellite radio is uncensored, but of course, the big down-side is that people have to pay to listen to it.

And then there's the issue of MPAA ratings and ESRB ratings, but I understand why they are in-place. Although, I still think it's the consumer's (and in some cases, the parent's job) to buy/view and not to buy/view, without government involvement (I'm not including the laws of buying of alcohol, tobacco, etc in this discussion).

I could go on and on about these topics, but I just wanted to express my opinon on them...

Tina, thank you for allowing me (and others) to express our opinions at these blogs.

Keep those kick-ass topics coming!

---------------------------------------------------

BTW, you have got to check out the following videos (from Amds films, http://spiritsnodeal.canalblog.com/)

Robocop vs. Terminator:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=86ltDTU1R8A

(It's very well edited, only with slightly awkward cuts between Terminator 2: JD and Terminator 3: RotM footage)

Robocop vs. Neo (Gold version):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UFou895WluU

Neo Waits For The Ghost Train: Episode 1: Run!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bdPCmNhJGzQ

Neo Waits For The Ghost Train: Episode 2: Closen!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tlZozb3iw3M

Neo Waits For The Ghost Train: Episode 3: Why?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=chnI2JGuv6w

Scrat (from Ice Age) in New York:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GTN13yupaWY

Walter Crespo

I've heard that term used on Twit and recently on GeekBrief, also RocketBoom, and now you. I still don't really get it, I would like here more about it, ofcourse I could read up on it, but honestly I would prefer to listen to a good interview/discussion on this toppic. So if you are thinking about doing a segment on Net Neutrality, I vote Yes and so do I, well the I's have it. : )

Arztek

Fantastic topic, Tina.

Forgive me if I can't help but equate this issue with exclusive game titles or monopolizing technology, but I feel many of these issues are an integral part of the free market and commercial economy.

Sadly, I think net neutrality is on its way out. I'm not happy about it, but I understand the system behind it. We live in a society where almost everything revolves around the almighty dollar...or pound...or Euro...currency, so when there is an opportunity to make some money by controlling the media we access, companies are going to take advantage of it.

While simply providing the service would be enough, why not control the media and exclude competition? Great monopolies were built on the understanding that companies should buy up and control all aspects of an industry, not just provide the service or product. We don't have to like it in order to understand the genius of it.

We see new examples of Media control almost every day. Take Google's recent purchase of YouTube for example. In order to expand Google Video Search and ensure users are accessing Google content, Google bought up and now controls YouTube. In order to control the PC software market, how many companies has Microsoft purchased? Sometimes the results are good, but there are always negative implications. On a somewhat relevant topic to your career, G4 was much better before Comcast bought the station and destroyed it. Where was the Net Neutrality there?

Exclusive content generates sales, so that's where companies are headed. I would love to see an open market where we could control what aspects of a service we used, but its not going to happen.

V360 is absolutely right. Imagine being able to choose what cable channels you received rather than buying expensive “packages” with hundreds of channels you never watch. Imagine a computer Market where Mac and PC got along and could use each other’s software. Imagine a world where I could actually surf the 10 website using the “Safari” web browser instead of having to use Firefox or IE. Wouldn’t that be something?

Until next time…great topics, my goddess.

Tina

Glad to hear you guys are passionate about this topic. A lot of people are saying this is an issue over security and its not, its about money. I agree with a lot of what you guys are saying. I don't want anybody to have control over which sites I can and can't access. And I certainly don't want to have to pay extra beyond my fifty bucks a month just to browse anyway. But I'm telling you...the internet is going to change. There are too many wealthy people behind these initiatives. The laws are still grey but eventually they will not be.

ScottMcC

I know people consider The Daily Show to be a credible source of information and therefore form their very strong opinions from net neutrality jokes made by Jon Stewart (meaning those people are unlikely to change their minds about net neutrality no matter what), but consider this:

Prior to the 1990s, the 'Net was only available to select researchers at major universities. Without the foundations laid 30 years ago by government grants and private donations to universities, there would be no Internet.

It's also true that without the billions of dollars spent over the past 15 years by Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, et al. employing the people to design and build out the tens of thousands of kilometers of interconnecting cables (sorry Ted, but it's NOT a "series of tubes") that serves not only as the high speed backbone but also the nerves connect our homes, dorms, etc., there is no Internet.

Think about this logically:

Disney is currently a partner with Sprint. Let's say in the next 18 months Disney wants to offer a service so all of their cartoons are available on the Internet in HD. A family in Kansas City with a Verizon DSL line wants to watch "Toy Story" using the new Disney on demand HD video service and clicks on the icon to start the movie. The movie is then instantly streamed directly to their house from the Disney servers at a Sprint colocation facility using a combination of the Sprint fiber optic connection to the family's Verizon DSL connection.

Conspiracy theorists are busy trying to convince everyone that unless net neutrality laws are immediately enacted, Verizon will use nefarious technology to somehow extort money out of Disney and Sprint just so that family in KC can watch "Toy Story" on their DSL connection.

That makes no logical or business sense. Why would the same people that already spent billions on building an interconnected network purposely cripple or block access to content that their consumers want? Our current anti-trust laws wouldn't allow that to happen and more importantly, individual consumers would get together and file a class-action lawsuit against companies that tried it.

We don't have a lot of regulation on the Internet right now and that's why the Internet is so awesome. However, it's starting to show it's age now that we have services like Skype, Vonage, YouTube, etc. because the underlying information transport technology of the Internet was built with a 56K phone modem in mind, not high-speed cable or DSL or WiMax.

A less-regulated Internet is better for all of us. With a net neutrality law, it would be illegal to develop and build new high-speed connections for customers that need them for new broadband services like real-time virtual reality games, long-distance robotic surgery, or on demand HD versions of On10.net vids in Windows Media Center.

So unless there's some kind of secret conspiracy going on behind the scenes, nobody reading this long and boring post is going to wake up and find they can't use Google or watch YouTube tomorrow because there's no net neutrality law. What very well could happen with net neutrality laws is that we could all be stuck with an Internet that never gets any faster because there's no logical incentive to build out innovative transport technologies for the data. And who wants to risk a laggy Internet connection when they're having long-distance robotic surgery over the Internet if net neutrality laws force Internet providers to never update the same old technology that's been around since Al Gore invented it?

Besides, when Google screams about how big money telecommunication companies would charge people more for certain services, it comes across as really hypocritical. Google is a big money company too! And Google got rich by charging jacked up "premium" prices for advertisers who want space at the top of hundreds of millions of Web pages. Google uses that business model because they know that it works for their business... So why are they lobbying for a law that makes it illegal for Comcast or Verizon to use a fair pricing model that works for their business?

That makes as much sense as your dad telling you that you're forbidden from drinking while he's holding a tumbler full of scotch!

I believe it's best to keep the Internet free... by liberating it from regulations!

TeddyB

In reply to V360

#Oct 10th, 2006 @ 9:35 PM

Neo vs. Robocop owns.

Bootstrap

Maybe I'm just a cold blooded businessman, but I don't understand the debate. The physical aspects of the internet - the cables and servers and connections - were laid down as an investment by private companies. It's a delivery mechanism. Shouldn't the owners be able to charge by the amount they are delivering? In the same way that a trucking company can charge by weight?

There are people that own the hardware, and there are customers who pay to use it. If the owners want to change their pricing system, isn't that their prerogative? If you don't like it, don't pay to use their system.

Someone else posted an example of a user downloading a Disney cartoon in HD. I liked that, but not his interpretation of it. So there this tube (sorry, couldn't resist.) coming into town, and it's owned by Verizon. Only so much can get through that particular tube at the same time. If Disney or the Disney Watcher are willing to pay Verizon more for priority shipping...how can you argue with that? It's Verizon's tube! You're just some guy who wants free access to it. Screw you - get your own tube. Why should Verizon have to provide you with equal access? You didn't pay for the tube, and now you're not willing to pay for the tube time that you use? That's ridiculous - you're not involved in this transaction at all, you're just some guy with no money who wishes he had a tube. Why don't we pass a law that says Verizon has to give us all free pizza and beer while we're at it?